United Mine Workers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 6, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1572 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2; UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1113 AND JOHN LEASE, AGENT and
M. F. FETTEROLF, D/B/A M. F. FETTEROLF COAL COMPANY
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, DISTRICT 2; AND JAMES MARK, MICHAEL WIDMAN,
MICHAEL DEGRETTO AND JOHN KOSICK, AGENTS and J. HOWARD
SMITH , T/D/B/A CENTRAL MOSIIANNON COAL MINING COMPANY and
HOWARD COAL MINING COMPANY and RIVER SMOKELESS COAL CO.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, DISTRICT 2; AND JAMES MARK, MICHAEL WIDMAN AND
JAMES LECORRE, AGENT and ELBA COAL CO., INC. and J. H. WALLIN,
T/D/B/A BANNER COAL COMPANY
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, DISTRICT 2; AND JAMES MARK, MICHAEL WIDMAN AND
MICHAEL DEGRETTO, AGENTS and CAVALIER COAL COMPANY, INC.
Cases Nos. 6-CB-137, 6-CB-149,6-CB-150 (Post 6-CC-70), 6-CB-
156 (Post 6-CC-70), 6-CB-151 (Post 6-CC-69), 6-CB-15°2 (Post
6-CC-67), and 6-CB-157 (Post 6-CC-68). April 6, 1953
Decision and Order
On October 23, 1952, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
some of 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, and also finding that
some of the Respondents had not engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby accepts 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, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that:
103 NLRB No. 134.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1573
1. The Respondents United Mine Workers of America, District 2;
United Mine Workers of America, Local 1113; their officers, repre-
sentatives, and agents, including John Lease, shall :
A. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing the employees of
M. F. Fetterolf Coal Company, by using or threatening them with
force or violence, barring their ingress and egress to and from work,
and threatening to take punitive action or reprisal against them, or
in any other manner restraining or coercing the employees in the exer-
cise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain
from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
B. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
1. Post in conspicuous places in the business offices of District 2 and
Local 1113, respectively, and in all places where notices to union
members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix A." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being signed by
officials of District 2 and Local 1113, and John Lease, be posted imme-
diately and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
2. Furnish to the Regional Director for the Sixth Region copies
of said signed notice for posting, M. F. Fetterolf Coal Company being
willing, on bulletin boards where notices to employees are cusom-
arily posted.
3. Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respond-
ents have taken to comply therewith.
II. The Respondents United Mine Workers of America; United
Mine Workers of America, District 2; their officers, representatives,
and agents , including James LeCorre, shall :
A. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing the employees of
Elba Coal Co., Inc., and Banner Coal Company, or any other em-
ployees engaged in mining operations within the geographical limits
of United Mine Workers of America, District 2, by using or threaten-
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
257965-54-vol. 103-100
1574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing them with force or violence, barring their ingress and egress to
and from work, and threatening to take punitive action or reprisal
against them, or in any other manner restraining or coercing the
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
B. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
1. Post in conspicuous places in the business office of United Mine
Workers of America, District 2, and in all places where notices to
union members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix B." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being
signed by officials of United Mine Workers of America, United Mine
Workers of -America, District 2, and James LeCorre be posted imme-
diately and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
2. Furnish to the Regional Director for the Sixth Region copies of
said signed notice for posting, Elba Coal Co., Inc., and Banner Coal
Company being willing, on bulletin boards where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted.
3. Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondents have taken to comply therewith.
III. The Respondents United Mine Workers of America ; United
Mine Workers of America, District 2; their officers, representatives,
and agents, including Michael Degretto and John Kosick, shall :
A. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing the employees
of Central Moshannon Coal Mining Company, Howard Coal Mining
Company, River Smokeless Coal Co., and Cavalier Coal Company,
Inc., or any other employees engaged in mining operations within the
geographical limits of United Mine Workers of America, District
2, by using or threatening them with force or violence, barring their
ingress and egress to and from work, and threatening to take punitive
action or reprisal against them, or in any other manner restraining or
2 Subject to amendment as indicated in footnote 1.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1575
coercing the employees in the exercise of the right to self- organiza-
tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, and to refrain, from any and all such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
B. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
1. Post in conspicuous places in the business office of United Mine
Workers of America, District 2, and in all places where notices to
union members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix C."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being
signed by officials of United Mine Workers of America, United Mine
Workers of America, District 2, and Michael Degretto and John
Kosick, be posted immediately and maintained by them for sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
them to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
2. Furnish to the Regional Director for the Sixth Region copies
of said signed notice for posting, Central Moshannon Coal Company,
Howard Coal Mining Company, River Smokeless Coal Co., and
Cavalier Coal Company, Inc., being willing, on bulletin boards where
notices to employees are customarily posted.
3. Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respon-
dents have taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondents James Mark and
Michael Widman engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondents engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
3 Subject to amendment as indicated in footnote 1.
Appendix A
NOTICE
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that :
1576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2; UNITED
MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1113, our officers, representa-
tives, and agents, including JOHN LEASE, and each, WILL NOT
restrain and coerce the employees, or any of them, engaged in any
of the mining operations of M. F. Fetterolf Coal Company, in the
exercise by them of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act, by using or threatening them
with force or violence, barring their ingress and egress to and
from work, physically preventing them from working, threaten-
ing punitive action or reprisal against them unless they become
members of the UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, or in any
other manner restraining or coercing them in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to re-
frain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author-
ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2,
Union.
By -------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1113.
By -------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
----------------------------
JOHN LEASE
Dated--------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix B
NOTICE
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that :
WE, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA; UNITED MINE WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2, our officers, representatives, and
agents, including JAMES LECORRE, and each, WILL NOT restrain and
coerce the employees, or any of them, engaged in any of the min-
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1577
ing operations of Elba Coal Co., Inc., and Banner Coal Company,
or any other employees engaged in mining operations within the
territorial jurisdiction of DISTRICT 2, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, in the exercise by them of the rights guaranteed to them
in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, by using or
threatening them with force or violence, barring their ingress and
egress to and from work, physically preventing them from work-
ing, threatening punitive action or reprisal against them unless
they become members of the UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
or in any other manner restraining or coercing them in the exer-
cise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to
the extent that such right may by affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Union.
By ------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2,
Union.
By ---------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
JAMES LECoRRE
Date --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix C
NOTICE
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that :
WE, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, UNITED MINE WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2, our officers, representatives, and
agents, including MICHAEL DEGRETrO and JOHN KOSICK, and each
WILL NOT restrain and coerce the employees, or Central Moshan-
non Coal Mining Company, Howard Coal Mining Company,
River Smokeless Coal Co., and Cavalier Coal Company, Inc., or
1578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any other employees engaged in mining operations within the
territorial jurisdiction of DISTRICT 2, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, in the exercise by them of the rights guaranteed to them
in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, by using or
threatening them with force or violence, barring their ingress and
egress to and from work, physically preventing them from work-
ing, threatening punitive action or reprisal against them unless
they become members of the UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
or in any other manner restraining or coercing them in the exer-
cise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities, ex-
cept to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Union.
By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2,
By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
-------------------------------------
MICHAEL DEGRETTO
-------------------------------------
JOHN KosICK
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate charges filed with the Regional Director for the Sixth Region
(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) by each of the above-named Companies, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board' by the Regional Director, pur-
suant to an order consolidating the seven cases, issued a consolidated complaint,
dated April 4, 1952, against the Respondents alleging that they were engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) ; and in
the Central Moshannon Coal Mining Company, Howard Coal Mining Company,
River Smokeless Coal Co., and Cavalier Coal Company , Inc., cases specified
I The General Counsel and his representatives at the bearing herein are called the Gen-
eral Counsel , and the National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1579
Respondents were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act. In substance the complaint : alleges that on and after
April 1, 1951, the Respondents, through demonstrations, statements, and other
acts of force and threats, directed against both the Companies and their em-
ployees, by barring ingress and egress of employees to and from mine properties,
inflicting, threatening, and attempting to inflict bodily injury to employees, and
by damaging property of the Companies to compel the shutdown of operations in
order to force employees of the Companies to join and assist Respondents' labor
organizations, thereby restrained and coerced the employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1)
thereof. The complaint further alleges that stated Respondents, by demanding
that Central Moshannon Coal Mining Company, Howard Coal Mining Company,
River Smokeless Coal Co., and Cavalier Coal Company, Inc., execute agreements
which would require employees as a condition of employment to become members
of the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, thereby engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) thereof. Copies
of the charges and the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon all
the parties.
Thereafter counsel for the Respondents filed with the Regional Director sep-
arate motions to dismiss the complaint, to sever the cases, and for a bill of par-
ticulars. These motions were referred to the undersigned for ruling thereon.
On April 24, 1952, the undersigned issued an order denying the motions to dismiss
and to sever, and directing that the General Counsel furnish a bill of particulars
in certain respects. The General Counsel complied with the order.'
On April 21, 1952, the Respondents filed their answer to the complaint denying
each allegation therein, except that Respondents admitted that the Respondent
Unions are labor organizations, that John Lease is president of Local 1113, that
Michael Widman, Michael Degretto,4 and John Kosick are agents of the United
Mine Workers of America, and that James Mark and James LeCorre are agents
of United Mine Workers of America, District 2.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, on April 21
through April 25, April 29, May 1 and 2, 1952, before the undersigned Trial
Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel, participated in the hearing,
and were afforded an opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertaining to the issues. At the outset of
the hearing , counsel for the Respondents renewed their motions to dismiss the
complaint, to sever the cases, and for further bill of particulars, which motions
were denied by the undersigned. Counsel for the Respondents also moved to
exclude witnesses from the hearing room, which motion was granted. At the
conclusion of the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the pleadings to
conform to the evidence which motion, limited to matters of form only, was
2 As appears in the caption of the case , 5 of the Companies filed prior charges with the
Regional Director . The records of the statistical section of the Board disclose that these
charges, involving violation of Section S (b) (4) (A) of the Act, were filed on October 3,
1951, and that 3 of the charges (6-CC-67, 69, 70) were withdrawn on October 26, 1951,
and the remaining charges ( 6-CC-66, 68 ) were withdrawn on January 9 and 14, 1952,
respectively.
3 The bill of particulars was offered and received in evidence without objection, as
General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 4, but it is not included in the official exhibits in this case.
The undersigned is therefore substituting his copy of the document , which was furnished at
the hearing, for the missing exhibit.
4 The parties stipulated to the correct spelling of the party 's name which appears in the
complaint as "DiGratta."
1580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
granted. At the same time, counsel for the Respondents renewed all motions
made during the course of hearing and the undersigned reaffirmed all prior
rulings made thereon. Counsel waived oral argument before the undersigned and
were advised of their right to file briefs in the matter. Thereafter the parties
filed briefs which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Each of the Companies named herein, except Howard Coal Mining Company,
is engaged in the business of mining, producing, processing, selling, and distrib-
uting coal at various strip mines leased by the respective Companies located in
central Pennsylvania. The Howard Company is engaged in selling and distrib-
uting coal under circumstances described below. At the hearing the parties
entered into a written stipulation setting forth the operations of the Companies,
which is as follows :
M. F. Fetterolf, an individual, d/b/a M. F. Fetterolf Coal Company, maintains
his office and principal place of business at Boswell, Pennsylvania. During the
year 1951, Fetterolf purchased materials, supplies, and equipment valued at
approximately $400,000, of which about $100,000 was shipped to the Company
from places outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the same period
the Company mined and sold coal valued at about $600,000, of which about $50,000
was shipped to places outside the Commonwealth.
J. Howard Smith, an individual, t/d/b/a Central Moshannon Coal Mining
Company, maintains his principal office at Houtzdale, Pennsylvania. During
the year ending November 30, 1951, the Company purchased materials, supplies,
and equipment valued at approximately $50,000, of which approximately $10,000
was shipped to the Company from places outside the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania. In the same period the Company mined and sold coal valued at about
$170,000, of which about $150,000 was shipped to places outside the Common-
wealth.
Howard Coal Mining Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, has its principal
office at Marion Station, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the selling and
distributing of coal. Howard obtains its coal from Diamond T. Strip Mining
Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, having its principal office at Philipsburg,
Pennsylvania, and operating mines in the area under an exclusive contract with
Howard. During the year ending November 30, 1951, Diamond T. purchased
materials, supplies, and equipment valued at approximately $175,000, of which
about $15,000 was shipped to it from places outside the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania. In the same period Diamond T. mined coal valued at approximately
$500,000, under its agreement with Howard, all of which was shipped by Howard,
without further processing, to places outside the Commonwealth.
River Smokeless Coal Co, a Pennsylvania corporation, maintains its principal
office at Clearfield, Pennsylvania. During the year ending June 30, 1951, the
Company mined and sold coal valued at approximately $300,000, of which about
.$270,000 was shipped to places outside the Commonwealth.
Elba Coal Co., Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, has its principal office at
Madera, Pennsylvania. In the 10-month period ending October 31, 1951, the
Company purchased materials, supplies, and equipment valued at about $100,000,
of which about $10,000 was shipped to it from places outside the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. In the same period the Company mined and sold coal valued at
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1581
approximately $590,000, of which about $400,000 was shipped to places outside
the Commonwealth.
J. H. Wallin, an individual, t/d/h/a Banner Coal Company, maintains his
principal office at Philipsburg, Pennsylvania. During the year ending October 31,
1951, Banner purchased materials, supplies, and equipment valued at approxi-
mately $24,000, of which about $9,000 was shipped to the Company from places
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the same period Banner mined
and sold coal valued at approximately $200,000, of which about $150,000 was
shipped, to places outside the Commonwealth.
Cavalier Coal Company, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, maintains its prin-
cipal office at Coupon, Pennsylvania. During the year ending October 31, 1951,
the Company purchased materials, supplies, and equipment valued at approxi-
mately $100,000, of which about $50,000 was shipped to it from places outside
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the same period the Company mined
and sold coal valued at approximately $425,000, of which about $100,000 was
shipped to places outside the Commonwealth.
The Respondents admit that each of the foregoing Companies is engaged in
commerce as defined in the Act, and the undersigned so finds.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
In accordance with the admissions in Respondents' answer, and upon the
evidence relating to that phase of the case, the undersigned finds that United
Mine Workers of America; United Mine Workers of America, District 2; and
United Mine Workers of America, Local 1113, are each labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. For the same reasons the
undersigned further finds that John Lease at all times material was an agent
of Local 1113, and that James Mark, Michael Widman, Michael Degretto, John
Kosick, and James LeCorre were, at all times material, agents of United Mine
Workers of America and United Mine Workers of America, District 2.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The organizational setup and functions of Respondent Unions; the
agents involved herein
District 2, is 1 of about 31 districts existing by virtue of the constitution of the
International Union and embraces about 17 counties in western and central
Pennsylvania excluding the Pittsburgh area.' James Mark, president of Dis-
trict 2 for the past 25 years, stated that the district exercises jurisdiction over
approximately 198 locals, which have about 35,000 members. The district, ac-
cording to Mark , is autonomous to the extent that its vice president, executive
board, and international executive board representatives are elected by the
membership and provisional to the extent that the president, secretary, and
international representatives are appointed by the international president.'
Mark declared that since the establishment of the district in 1898, its primary
function has been, and is, to organize the nonunion mines within its geographical
limits. However, District 2 has no employee-members, the employees being
members of the local and the International, although its expenses are defrayed
by membership dues, which are distributed among the three organizations.
6 See United Mine Workers of America (Mercury Mining t Construction Corp ), 96 NLRB
1389.
Mark made no mention of the office of district treasurer . In the Mercury case , supra,
the evidence disclosed that the treasurer was also appointed by the international president.
1582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In respect to local unions. Mark said that after a charter is granted by the
International the district assumes jurisdiction over the local and advises it
concerning its affairs whenever "it is necessary," or when the local requests such
guidance. Mark stated that the jurisdiction of local unions is limited to the
mines with which they have agreements and normally their only function is to
see that the miners employed in a particular mine are members of the appropriate
local. However, Mark said that where nonunion mines are in competition with
union mines, the locals affected thereby "very often" attempt to organize such
operators "on their own hook." In substance, Mark related that the organiza-
tional activities directed against the instant Companies were conducted by vari-
ous local unions and that sometime after the campaign had commenced he was
notified of such activities.
Mark further testified that the International assigns certain representatives
or organizers to the district and while these organizers are paid by the Inter-
national they work under the direction and orders of the district president. At
the time in question, Kosick,7 Degretto, and Louis Lippi were international repre-
sentatives assigned to District 2. During the same period, Mark stated that
LeCorre was a member of the executive board of District 2 and worked for the
district ; Louis Evans was an employee of District 2 and held the office of mine
commissioner for the district ; Amades Raymond and a Mr. Gabelli were tempo-
rary employees of District 2, and Messrs. Yonkers and Feast were representa-
tives of the district. Mark stated that Widman was a special international rep-
resentative but he was not too familiar with his duties. Widman testified he was
international representative and that his assignments were not limited to any
particular district or territory but covered the entire country. Widman's duties
included liaison work between the International and the various district offices,
organizing, and speaking assignments. Widman admitted that he was in District
2 at least part of the time the campaign was being conducted and was generally
aware of this activity.
B. Fetterolf Coal Company
Fetterolf testified that about April 1951," he maintained his office and shop at
Farrellton 0 and was engaged in stripping coal at 4 mines located on adjoining
farms known as Shawless, Friedline, Spangler, and Lent, which were about 2
miles north of Farrellton, on or near Route 60110 In describing his operations,
Fetterolf said that the dirt is stripped ott the top of the coal by a dragline, which
is then removed with a shovel, loaded into trucks. and hauled to the Company's
tipple or cleaning plant, about 6 miles distant, where it is cleaned and loaded
directly into railroad cars. The Company employed about 20 persons in its
stripping operations.
Fetterolf stated that he was at the shop about 8 o'clock the morning of Tues-
day, April 10, when Superintendent Clement Buchanan informed him that John
Lease and about 75 men had been to the jobs and shut down operations. Fetter-
olf asked some of the employees in the shop, who had previously reported for
work at the mines and returned to the shop, if they desired to work, whereupon
the entire group accompanied by John Stoddard, a contractor of Fetterolf,
drove out to the mines. When the group arrived at the Spangler and Friedline
properties they found nothing out of the ordinary, so Fetterolf told the men to
7 In portions of the transcript his name appears as "Kosiak" and "Kosial."
All dates refer to 1951 unless otherwise stated.
0 The stipulation states the office was located at Boswell.
10 The Company also operated another mine near Gray, which is not involved in this
case.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1583
go to work , which they did. About 30 minutes later, Lease arrived with about
75 men. He and 6 or 7 of the group then approached Fetterolf , who was stand-
ing with Buchanan , Stoddard , Foreman Blackford , and several employees on
the company road that led from mine property to Route 601. The remainder
of Lease's group stayed on Route 601. Lease asked who started operations and
Fetterolf told him he had done so. He then stated that he wanted the machines
shut down until "we joined the Union ," and Fetterolf said he could not do so.
Lease reiterated his demand and declared that Fetterolf was "either going to
join the Union or he would run us out of the country and if he did not have
enough men there to do it, he was going back and get more." Fetterolf told
Lease that he would not load or haul any coal for the remainder of the week
although he would continue his stripping operations . Lease and his men then
left. Fetterolf continued or resumed stripping operations for the rest of the
week and each morning Lease and about 100 men appeared at his properties.
On Tuesday , April 17 , Fetterolf decided to load and haul coal and as Lease and
about 100 pickets were at or near the entrance to the Spangler property, he
called the State Police. Thereafter , Fetterolf, with State Police present at the
mines and escorting trucks, loaded and hauled coal.
Buchanan stated that about April 11, he drove to the mine properties around
7 o'clock in the morning and observed a number of pickets at the Lent property
and some trucks, belonging to Fetterolf as well as contract owners, parked off
the road at the entrance of this property . Buchanan could not identify the
pickets other than they were not company employees . Buchanan said the pickets
told him "they were going to shut the job down ," so he drove back to the Com-
pany's office and reported the incident to Fetterolf . He returned to the mines
with Fetterolf , Stoddard , and Blackford and noticed that the trucks had been
moved into the Spangler tract . Buchanan also saw Lease on this occasion and
was present when he and 6 or 8 pickets talked to Fetterolf . Lease said he was
going to shut down operations and when Buchanan said the Company intended
to repair the road leading into the Lent tract, Lease declared that he was shutting
down the Equipment . Fetterolf stated "this is a free country " but Lease said
he was going to shut down the job and make the Company "sign up" or "chase us
out of the country." Lease and the pickets then left and the Company com-
nmenced operations , including the repair of the Lent road. Buchanan said Lease
and the pickets were present at the mine entrance every morning the remainder
of the week but he was able to drive through the pickets to enter mine property.
Glenn A. Cisney was employed by the Company as bulldozer operator in
April and worked until about the following August when he quit. Cisney, on the
day in question, stated that he was driving to work from Boswell about 6: 30
in the morning , accompanied by Blackford , and as he approached the Lent
property he saw a number of men lined on both sides of Route 601 . Cisney was
working at the Spangler farm which was located beyond that point, so he con-
tinued on, parked his car, and went to his bulldozer which was parked on the
Friedline tract directly opposite the Spangler farm. Cisney checked his bull-
dozer and was ready to start work when about eight pickets approached him,
some of whom climbed on the side of the machine . The pickets asked if he was
going to work and when he said he was , they told him "You better not start it
up. If we can't stop you, we have fifty men here that will stop you ." Cisney
did not attempt to work and after a short while joined other employees,
apparently at the Spangler tract. Later in the morning Cisney went to work
and continued to work the remainder of the week . Each morning Cisney saw
pickets around the various tracts operated by the Company but avoided them
and used other entrances. During this time , seemingly Thursday or Friday,
1584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lease and three men came to the place where Cisney was working. Cisney asked
Lease what his plans were and he spoke about the Union and the union welfare
fund. Cisney then inquired as to what would be done for the employees if they
cooperated and Lease said "he did not give a damn about us," as long as "they
got their welfare." One of the group told Cisney, in the presence of Lease, that
he should be ashamed for not cooperating and that "they were going to stop us"
from working. The conversation lasted about 5 minutes and another employee,
Phillips, was present during part of the same.
Wayne Keebaugh stated he was shovel operator and in early April while
working on the Friedline tract, Lease and 4 or 5 men came to the shovel and
told him to shut it down, which he did. Lease informed Keebaugh and his
helper, Harvey Seymour, that they were not going to work until they joined the
Union. Lease talked about the Union, then stated he was going to see Fetterolf.
Keebaugh left the shovel and after talking to Fetterolf went back to work.
Keebaugh worked the remainder of the week. One morning he found Lease
and a group of pickets standing in the road at the entrance of the Lent tract,
which leads to the Friedline farm, and he was forced to drive "overland" to
get to the tract. On Friday morning that week as Keebaugh and Phillips were
entering the mine property (apparently one of the Lent entrances) Lease, with
a group of pickets, yelled "to get the hell out there." Keebaugh, after parking
his car, went to shovel and commenced working. Shortly thereafter, Lease and
the same group of men who had previously visited Keebaugh came to the shovel
and told him "to close her down" and if they did not have enough men to make
him do so, they would come back and "blow her up."
Melvin Phillips, shovel operator, stated that about April 13 while driving to
work, he saw several company trucks parked near the Lent property and
pickets standing around the area. Phillips proceeded to the Spangler tract,
parked his car, and started shovel operations. About an hour later Lease and
3 men came to him and asked him to stop work until they could contact Fetterolf
and see what could be done. Phillips shut down the shovel and joined 4 other
employees on the Lent property. They then walked down the road and near the
entrance to the Lent property met Fetterolf who told them to go back to work,
which they did. One morning the same week, Phillips and Wayne Keebaugh
reported for work at 6 o'clock, an hour before the usual time, and after parking
their cars, Lease and a group of men told them to go home. Phillips continued
on his way to his shovel which was at the Spangler tract while Keebaugh went
to his shovel at the Friedline tract. Lease and his group then separated with
10 or 15 men going in the direction of Keebaugh's shovel. About 7 of the group
ieame to Phillips and told him to go home. Phillips said nothing but waited at
the shovel with Lease and the pickets. Shortly thereafter, Lease and 1 of the
group went to a bulldozer that was working but the rest of the men stayed with
Phillips. After about 10 minutes the group left and Phillips went to work.
Later that day, at some undisclosed hour, Lease and about 6 pickets, several of
whom carried clubs, told Phillips and Cisney that if they did not go home by the
time they returned they would put them out. Phillips and Cisney remained at
work but the pickets did not return.
Kenneth Fix, bulldozer operator, stated that he was driving to work the
morning of April 10, and saw about 50 pickets at the entrance to the Spangler
tract where his machine was parked. Fix made no attempt to enter the prop-
erty but turned around and later met Buchanan who instructed him to use the
bulldozer on the Lent property and level off the road leading into the mine. Fix
rode over to the bulldozer in a truck and when he and the driver got out about
30 pickets told them "we wasn't going to work no more until we joined the
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1585
Union." Fix got on the bulldozer and about 15 or 20 pickets came over and told
him not to start up the machine . When Fix started up the bulldozer some of
the pickets climbed on the machine and said they were there to see that he did
not work. Fix explained that he was going to level the road but they stated he
could not do so and he got off the bulldozer . He then joined other employees
and went out on Route 601 where they met Fetterolf who told them to return to
work . Fix returned to his bulldozer which was sitting in the Spangler tract.
He and Warren Keebaugh then went to the fuel tank, which was located about
20 feet from the entrance to the strip , where they were met by Lease and a group
of men. Lease remarked lie thought the employees were going to shut down and
Keebaugh replied he understood Lease was to see Fetterolf . Lease said he
could not find him but he then saw Fetterolf in the cut and went over to him. Fix
went to work and worked the remainder of the week although Lease and the
pickets were at the property every day . On at least one occasion the pickets
blocked an entrance to the tract by standing in the road and Fix had to use
another entrance.
Warren C . Keebaugh was employed as oiler on the dragline , which was
operated by Harold Goden , and on April 10 , was working in the Spangler tract.
After working about an hour Keebaugh saw Lease and a group of men standing
alongside the machine and then Lease climbed up and told them to shut it
down, that there would be no more work that day. Keebaugh and Goden
ceased working and went over to the Friedline tract where they met some other
employees. After a short while Fetterolf came out and told them to go back
to work. Keebaugh then went to the fuel pump with Fix where they were met
by Lease and about 30 pickets . Keebaugh testified substantially the same as
Fix concerning the conversation they had with Lease. Thereafter , Keebaugh
returned to work and continued to work the rest of the week . During this
period Keebaugh used several different entrances and on several mornings he
was unable to park at his customary place because of other cars in the area
Harold Goden testified Lease had about seven men with him when he climbed
on the dragline and told Goden to shut it down, that they were not working
that day. Goden asked what the trouble was and Lease said he was organizing
for the United Mine Workers and talked of the benefits of joining the Union.
Goden told Lease he would shut down the machine if he would see Fetterolf and
get the matter straightened out. Lease said he would do so, whereupon Goden
ceased working. Shortly afterwards Goden met Fetterolf who stated he could
return to work if he wished to do so . Goden thereupon resumed work.
Lease testified that the local maintained its office at Jerome and had between
350 and 400 members who were employed at mines owned by Hillman Coal &
Coke Company. Lease related that in 1950 Fetterolf commenced stripping coal
owned by Hillman Company and as a consequence work slackened at the latter's
mines so that in April 1951 these employees were working but 2 days a week
whereas other mines in the area were working 5 or 6 days a week. Accordingly,
the local , pursuant to a motion adopted at one of its meetings , "decided to
contact the Fetterolf employees." Thereafter, on April 10, when the Hillman
was idle, Lease stated that between 250 and 300 members of the local went to
the Fetterolf job about 6 o'clock in the morning for the purpose of contacting
the employees . Lease said the men contacted the employees as they reported
for work . However , since Fetterolf was working 3 different tracts and the
employees used different entrances they missed some of the employees so Lease
and his men went on the jobs and talked to about 30 individuals. About 11 o'clock
Lease saw Fetterolf on the Spangler property, which runs along Route 601,
and went on the job to see him. Lease was accompanied by 6 men but when he
1586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
talked to Fetterolf , who was with Stoddard , Buchanan , and Blackford, these
men remained approximately 100 feet away. About 25 or 30 of Fetterolfs
employees were also present and about the same distance away from the group.
On Route 601, there were approximately 250 pickets . Lease explained to Fet-
terolf that his operations had affected work at the Hillman Company , that he
had contacted his employees that morning in regard to the Union , and asked him
to sign an agreement with the Union bringing his wages up to those paid by
Hillman . Fetterolf said he could not pay the union scale , plus the welfare
assessment , and that he would shut down rather than sign such an agreement.
Lease replied that men like him should be run "the hell out of the country."
Following this meeting Lease said the local picketed the job every day until
April 27, when picketing ceased because "it was useless to try to do anything
with the job." Lease stated that "nothing unusual" happened during this period
and there were no disturbances or too much dissension between the pickets and
the employees. Lease denied that he told the employees they could not work
but asked them to refuse to work until a contract had been signed. He also
denied that he made any threats to the employees or that any of the pickets
carried clubs or sticks . Lease stated he did not give prior notice to District 2
of the action taken by the local as he considered this "a job of our own."
Mark testified he had no advance knowledge that the Jerome local was at-
tempting to organize Fetterolf, although it was reported to him afterward. He
further stated that subsequent to the organizational activities of the local, the
Company signed 2 separate agreements , the last 1 being executed on April 22,
1952.
Lease said that the Company and the Union executed an agreement in October
1951 which was signed by Lease, as representative of District 2, and William
Parks, member of the executive board. While Lease could have signed the con-
tract of April 22, 1952, he did not do so, but Mark signed this agreement on
behalf of District 2.
Conclusions and Findings
From the foregoing evidence , the undersigned finds that Lease, at all times
material , was president of Local 1113 and a representative of District 2, and
that in early April the local, due to slackness of work among its members allegedly
caused by the Company's operations, decided "to contact" the employees at
Fetterolf. Accordingly , on April 10, Lease and some 300 members of the local
went to the Fetterolf jobs and contacted about 30 employees as they reported for
work and while working. The same morning Lease talked to Fetterolf in the
presence of 2 supervisors and a contractor , and requested Fetterolf to sign an
agreement with the Union , which he refused to do. Lease, after explaining his
position , said that men like Fetterolf should be run "the hell out of the country."
The meeting concluded with Fetterolf stating that while he would continue his
stripping operations he would not load or haul any coal that week. During this
discussion , which took place on the Spangler property , Lease admitted that about
30 employees and 6 members of the local were about 100 feet distant from him-
self and Fetterolf, while 250 pickets were stationed on the nearby highway.
Since there is no evidence that the employees engaged in , or overheard, any of
the discussion between Lease and Fetterolf, the undersigned does not consider
this incident as the basis for a finding of any unfair labor practice , although it
may be properly considered for background purposes to show the motive and
nature prompting the subsequent course of conduct pursued by the Respondents.
Following this meeting Lease admitted, and it is found, that the local continu-
ously picketed the Company's operations until April 27
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1587
As set forth above, the General Counsel produced a number of employees who
testified concerning certain acts and conduct occurring in the course of the picket-
ing, which counsel for the Respondents contend is insufficient to support a finding
of unfair labor practices . On the other hand the only evidence adduced on
behalf of the Respondents came from Lease who testified that "nothing unusual"
happened during the picketing and generally denied that threats were directed
against the employees, that they were told they could not work, and that the
pickets carried clubs. The undersigned is not persuaded by Lease's testimony
in this respect and therefore accepts and credits the testimony of the witnesses for
the General Counsel, as set forth below.
Counsel for the Respondents argue that mass picketing is not, per se, coercive
and as there is no evidence of any violence , disorder , or coercion on the part of
the pickets , nor any interference with the employees entering or leaving mine
properties , the Respondents have engaged in no unlawful conduct. There is
no question but that peaceful picketing in substantial number is not illegal under
the Act . However, the Board stated in its Sixteenth Annual Report (fiscal
year 1951 , p. 207 ), that this principle had no application in a case's where a
district organization of the United Mine Workers sought to enforce certain
demands against an operator by proceeding to the property with between 400
and 500 pickets, where only 12 or 14 employees were involved, and there blocking
entrance to the mine, chasing an employee off the property, and throwing a rock
through a truck window. Under these circumstances , the Board found the
district engaged in acts and conduct in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of
the Act. It is true in the instant case that the pickets did not engage in acts
of violence in the sense that they physically assaulted the employees or damaged
company property or equipment . But whether the absence of such violence
reflects meekness on the part of the pickets or whether it is attributable to
obedience by the employees to their demands is a matter that need not be
determined for here there is ample evidence that the pickets engaged in acts
of coercion and intimidation . Thus, Fix testified , and it is found , that on
April 10 , he saw about 30 pickets as he approached his bulldozer , some of whom
told him he could not work until he joined the Union. Despite this warning,
Fix mounted the bulldozer and 15 or 20 pickets then came to him and told him
not to start the machine . When he ignored this demand and attempted to
start up, some of the pickets climbed up on the machine and stated , "there was
enough of them here to see I did not start it up ." Fix believed the pickets
"meant business" so he got off the bulldozer and left. At approximately the
same time , Cisney experienced like treatment when he attempted to start his
bulldozer , for about 8 pickets warned him not to start up and "if we can't stop
you, we have 50 men here that will stop you." Cisney made no attempt to work
and left his machine. Similarly , the pickets climbed on the dragline and told
Warren Keebaugh to shut down the machine and he complied with their de-
mand. Wayne Keebaugh was directed by Lease and 4 or 5 pickets to shut
down the shovel , which be did. Later the same week , Lease and a group of
men told Keebaugh to close down the shovel and if they did not have enough
men to force him to cease work they would come back and "blow her up."
Again , one morning during the week of April 10, the pickets instructed Phillips
to leave his work and go home. Phillips did not do so and when Lease came
back later in the afternoon, accompanied by 6 men, some of whom carried
clubs, he instructed Phillips to go home otherwise they would return and put
11 UMW, DiPtrict 31 (Bitner Fuel Companu) 92 NLRB 953, enforced N L. R B. v United
Mine Workers of 1 me, Wa, Di,trict 31, 190 E 2d 231 (C A 4).
1588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him off the property. The undersigned further finds that on April 10, and during
that week, the pickets prevented the employees from entering upon some of the
roads ordinarily used by them in going to their place of work. While the
pickets did not bar ingress and egress at all entrances at all times, the testi-
mony of Buchanan , Cisney, Fix, and Warren Keebaugh plainly demonstrates
that on occasions a large number of pickets did effectively block the use of
customary entrances to the various jobs. It is also true that the Company on
and after April 17 did load and haul some coal but at such times the State
Police were present at the mines and furnished escort for the trucks.
It is undisputed that Local 1113 and Lease are appropriate Respondents in
this matter and the undersigned so finds. The undersigned further concludes
and finds that District 2 is a proper party Respondent and responsible for the
acts and conduct found above, since the primary function of the district is the
organization of nonunion mines in the area, that it exercises jurisdiction over all
locals in the territory, and that Lease was a representative of the district and
acting in that capacity at the time of the above occurrences. Assuming that
Lease may not have observed the pickets engage in unlawful conduct, neverthe-
less, the result would be the same since he engaged in, directed, and controlled the
mass picketing, hence it is immaterial that there is no affirmative showing the
particular contemporaneous coercive acts were specifically authorized by the
district, the local, or Lease. (Bitner Fuel Company, supra; United Mine Workers
of America, District 2 (Mercury Mining and Construction Company), 96 NLRB
1389.) By reason of the foregoing conduct, the undersigned finds that the
Respondents, District 2, Local 1113, and their agent, Lease, restrained and coerced
the employees of Fetterolf in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
C. River Smokeless Coal
Elmer Milliron, superintendent, stated that since July the Company operated
a strip mine located about 2 miles south of Irvona. The company property
extends almost a mile along a black top road and the pit turns at about a right
angle to the highway for 700 or 800 feet, then makes a left turn and parallels
the road at a distance of about 1,000 feet from the road. The mine property
had but one entrance, a haulage road leading from the black top to the cut, a
distance of approximately 150 feet, and about half an acre on both sides of this
road had been cleared. The Company also operated a tipple near Irvona. The
Company employed around 35 employees, exclusive of contract haulers, and of
this number about 28 were employed at the pit on a 2-shift basis, including 1
truckdriver.
The Occurrences of August 23
Milliron said that about 7: 30 the morning of the above date 4 men, whom he
did not know, came to the strip and informed him they were members of the
United Mine Workers and were out to organize all nonunion jobs. These men
explained how the nonunion companies, because of low wages, were affecting
the operation of union mines and that the Union intended to organize these
operators to lessen competition. Milliron told them the employees seemed satis-
fied and that the Company could not pay 30 cents per ton to the welfare fund
and continue to operate. The men replied that they were going to picket all
nonunion jobs in the area until they secured contracts. Milliron said they would
have to discuss contract terms with D. Maitland DuBois, principal owner of the
Company, and the group then left. Milliron and the employees continued opera-
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1589
tions and after some trucks had been loaded he drove ahead of them in a pickup
'truck . About 150 feet from the black top road Milliron saw some 50 or 60 cars
parked on the highway and about 200 pickets in the area between the pit
and the highway blocking the haulage road . Milliron made no effort to drive
through but pulled off to the side of the road. As the trucks, one of which
was owned and operated by the Company, approached, the pickets blocked the
haulage road and when the trucks stopped they surrounded them. There were
shouts from the pickets that the drivers would not haul any more coal and to
dump the trucks. Milliron went over to one of the trucks but he was told to leave
as the pickets wanted to talk to the driver. After some delay the trucks were
permitted to proceed with the warning to the drivers "not to come back if they
knew what was good for them." Milliron said Degretto and Kosick were present
and that the former "seemed to supervise the pickets ." As the trucks were leav-
ing Degretto told Milliron he was taking "an awful chance while these trucks are
bucking a picket line." Milliron made no reply but walked away. The trucks
did not return and after about an hour the pickets permitted Milliron to leave.
Apparently, Milliron left the property and returned, but in any event he stated
that, subsequently, as he was coming out of the pit he saw the company fuel
truck, driven by employee O'Harrow, surrounded by pickets as he was attempting
to enter the strip. Milliron went to the truck and instructed O'Harrow to
return to the tipple.
The pickets remained at the job while the employees continued to work in
the pit, a distance of about 1,500 feet from the highway, and around 4: 30, quit-
ting time, the employees who had parked their cars near the pit, requested him
to drive out with them . Milliron drove in front of the cars and when he reached
a point on the haulage road where the pickets were assembled they opened a
passage for him to go through but stopped the cars in which the employees were
riding. Milliron proceeded onto the highway where he parked. About 150 pick-
ets surrounded the cars carrying the employees and it was not until 30 minutes
later that they were able to leave the property. Degretto was present when this
incident occurred and told Milliron that the Union was worried about the amount
of nonunion coal going on the market and they intended to picket all jobs in
the area until contracts were signed . In response to Milliron 's inquiry concern-
ing the contract, Degretto stated that the Company would have to grant recog-
nition to the United Mine Workers, deduct initiation fees, dues, and assessments
of employees , pay the union wage scale , and pay 30 cents per ton to the union
welfare fund . Milliron pointed out that some operators under contract simply
paid union dues and welfare fund assessments without paying the wage scale
or adhering to union work schedule . Degretto said the Union had been careless
about these matters . The conversation concluded with Milliron telling Degretto
he would have to discuss any contract with DuBois . Milliron, the employees,
and the pickets then left.
The Company did not operate from this date until September 7. In the interim
Milliron visited the pit every day and observed anywhere from 150 to 1,000
pickets. Degretto and Kosick were with the pickets on most occasions.
William O 'Harrow , employed as repairman , stated he was driving the fuel
truck on the above occasion and as he turned off the highway onto the haulage
road he saw about 300 pickets standing in the road . O'Harrow drove as far as
he could , then stopped. One of the pickets stepped on the bumper of his truck
with a bulldozer cutting clutch in his hand and made motions as if to throw the
clutch through the windshield. The pickets surrounded his truck and 1 of them
remarked , "Let me hit the son-of-a-bitch ," but other pickets held him back. The
pickets told O'Harrow to back the truck out on the highway, or they would upset
257965-54-vol . 103-101
1590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him, and he obeyed their instructions . He then got out and 3 men came over to
him. One of them, a heavy-set individual , told O 'Harrow he might as well go
home and not cause any trouble because there would be no work . Milliroir
then came to the truck and instructed O'Harrow to drive to the tipple , which he
did. O 'Harrow worked at the tipple the rest of the day.
Cyril Weakland and 7 other employees worked in the pit until about 3 o'clock
that afternoon . Weakland stated that the employees left the pit in 5 or 6 cars
and drove in convoy with Milliron leading in his pickup and Weakland driving
the last car. As the cars were proceeding along the haulage road toward the
highway, about 150 pickets came onto the former road and, after permitting
Milliron to go through , stopped the cars. Weakland and the other employees
got out of their cars and were encircled by the pickets. Degretto passed out
union cards to the employees and told Weakland to sign the card , "If you know
what's good for you." Weakland made no response but signed the card, as did
the other employees . Degretto said DuBois would sign a contract in a few days
and everything would be straightened out. Weakland and the employees were
then permitted to leave. The next morning when Weakland reported for work
he saw about 200 pickets at the entrance to the pit. Weakland made no effort
to enter the pit and talked to Degretto who told him to go home and he would
let him know when everything was straightened out. Weakland did not work
again until the early part of September.
Paul Ponist , shovel operator , stated that he worked in the pit on the day in
question and about 3 o'clock , he and the employees left the property in a convoy
of 7 or 8 cars led by Milliron . As the cars were driving on the haulage road,
Ponist saw about 100 pickets near the intersection of the highway. Milliron was
permitted to drive through but about 30 pickets stood on the haulage road caus-
ing the cars to stop . When the cars stopped the pickets told the employees to
get out, which they did. Ponist , however, remained in his car or pickup. The
pickets gathered around the employees near Ponist and Degretto talked about
the union , then passed out cards and told them they had better sign up, which
they did . The entire incident lasted about 45 minutes and the employees then
left . Ponist did not report at the pit the following day and did not work until
about 2 weeks later.
Henry O. Hendricks . shovel operator , testified he first saw pickets at the pit
apparently about August 24 . On this occasion he and his son , who was employed
as an oiler, were driving to work and observed about 150 pickets around the
entrance to the pit . Hendricks turned off the highway into the haulage road
but had to stop because it was crowded with pickets , 1 of whom he identified as
Degretto . The men gathered around his car and 1 of them handed him a card
and told him that since the night shift had signed these cards he wanted Hen-
dricks to sign up. Hendricks did not read the card but signed it, assuming it
was a union card , and gave it to the picket. Hendricks stated a second car
carrying 2 employees parked alongside of him and the pickets gathered around
his car and passed out cards to the employees . Hendricks did not work that day
and was out until early September.
Raymond stated he was secretary of Local 1036 , located at Gallitzin, which
had about 575 members employed in 4 mines in the area . In August the local
voted to organize the nonunion mines and Raymond contacted other locals in
order that a program might be arranged. Thereafter , on August 23, the local
assembled about 375 of its members in Gallitzin and then drove to the River
Smokeless operations , a distance of about 28 miles. The pickets arrived at the
mine early in the morning and waited around the mine entrance until quitting
time. During this time Degretto came to the scene and asked what the pickets
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1591
were doing there and Raymond told him the job was a nonunion operation.
Around 3: 30, about 12 employees drove out of the job and the pickets asked them
to stop, which they did. Raymond , as well as some of the pickets , explained the
benefits of belonging to the United Mine Workers , and asked the employees
to sign union cards, some of whom signed up and gave the cards to him.
Degretto said he arrived at the mine about 11 o'clock and saw about 100
pickets in the area . Degretto talked to Raymond and other officers of the local
and, at their suggestion, spoke to the pickets. In substance, Degretto told the
pickets to conduct themselves in an orderly manner . Degretto also volunteered
to contact representatives of the Company . When the employees left the mine
in their cars the pickets "waved" at them and they stopped. Degretto and
Kosick then talked to the employees about the benefits of joining the Union and
all of them , 14 in number , signed union cards. One of the truckdrivers asked
for cards in order to sign up the night shift , which Degretto gave to him, and
the next day the signed cards were returned to Degretto . During this conversa-
tion there were about 25 pickets in the immediate vicinity of the employees and
about 75 additional pickets in the area. Following this action, Degretto walked
to the highway and informed Milliron that the employees had signed union
cards and requested a meeting with the Company. Milliron told Degretto that
DuBois was the operator and to call him. Degretto admitted he visited the
mine every day the pickets were present.
Kosick testified to the same effect as Degretto concerning the presence of
pickets, the stopping of the employees , and their signing union cards. Kosick
said he was present practically every day that the mine was being picketed.
The Meeting of August 28
DuBois stated that about August 28 he and Attorney Whitsett met with
Degretto and Kosick at the Company's office. Degretto said that the Company
would have to sign an agreement providing for the payment of an assessment
of 30 cents per ton to the Union and that the employees would have to pay
dues, which the Company would collect, otherwise it would not operate. The
parties also discussed the subject of the employees becoming members of the
Union. DuBois asked if the Union was the authorized representative of the
employees and Degretto said the Union did not recognize the Board . Degretto
stated he had signed up the employees but DuBois said as for us he knew none
of his employees had "willingly " signed cards. The discussion ended incon-
clusively and no further meetings were held with DuBois.
Degretto and Kosick denied that they requested DuBois to sign any agreement
which provided that his employees would be required to become members of
the Union. They further denied that his employees were forced to sign union
cards.
The Events of September 7
On the morning of the above date all employees reported at the tipple. There
they got into 6 trucks, 1 of which was owned and operated by the Company,
and with Milliron leading in his pickup, accompanied by DuBois and his son,
the convoy drove to the pit. Milliron said there were about 250 pickets at the
intersection of the highway and haulage road and as the trucks approached,
the pickets "opened a hole wide enough" to get through and cursed the gm-
ployees as they entered the pit. The Company loaded coal that morning and
each truck carried a rider, a company employee. While the pickets permitted
the trucks to go through they cursed the driver and rider and shouted not to
come back "if you know what's good for you." The company operated all morning
1592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and about noon the pickets left. Milliron stated that the first truck to come
into the pit after lunch picked up a piece of steel which ruined a tire. He further
stated he had 3 flat tires and that an examination of the road leading to the pit
disclosed nails imbedded in the road head up, and spaced at various intervals
over a distance of about 500 feet. The Company ceased operations about 3 o'clock
that day and did not resume work until October 8 , following the issuance of an
injunction by the county court.
Weakland said he rode in 1 of the contract trucks and when the convoy reached
the entrance to the pit he saw about 300 pickets at the intersection of the roads.
The pickets let the trucks "drag through" at the same time cursing and shouting
vile names at the employees. Weakland made several trips from the pit to the
tipple with 1 of the contract haulers and on 1 of these trips someone threw a
dish of rotten pickles through the open window on the driver's side which splashed
into his face.
O'Harrow said he was riding in a truck with Lucas and on 1 trip someone threw
an apple core which hit the truck window. O'Harrow estimated there were
about 300 pickets at the intersection of the haulage road and the highway and
when the trucks came out they cursed the employees.
Ponist rode to the pit in a truck driven by Lucas and as they approached the
entrance to the pit he saw about 100 pickets assembled on both the highway
and the haulage road . However , the pickets opened a passage sufficiently wide
for the truck to proceed to the pit. Later, Ponist drove the company truck and
made 2 or 3 trips to the tipple. The pickets were present when he made 1 of
these trips but apparently he was not stopped. Ponist stated the pickets left
about 12 o'clock and he worked part of the afternoon.
Degretto said h@ saw no acts of violence on the part of the pickets , nor were
any such acts reported to him. He admitted that no trucks entered the job
from August 28 to September 7, and during the period of the picketing Milliron
was the only person who went in and out of the job.
Conclusions and Findings
The undersigned finds that on August 23, Milliron was informed by 4 in-
dividuals, who stated they were members of the United Mine Workers, that the
Union intended to organize all the nonunion mines in the area and to picket these
mines until agreements had been secured . Milliron suggested that the individ-
uals discuss contract terms with DuBois, whereupon the group left . The under-
signed finds that shortly thereafter, a group of loaded trucks , 1 of which was
owned and operated by the Company, was stopped on the company road by about
200 pickets , who warned the drivers to dump the trucks and not to haul any more
coal. After some delay the trucks were allowed to proceed but the drivers were
threatened by the pickets, "not to come back if they knew what was good for
them." Both Degretto and Kosick were present with the pickets when the inci-
dent occurred . The undersigned also finds that on the same day about 300
pickets stopped O'Harrow while he was driving a fuel truck on the company road
leading to the pit and that 1 of the pickets threatened him with a cutting clutch
and another threatened to strike him. O'Harrow was instructed by the pickets
not to enter the pit but to back his truck onto the highway , otherwise they would
upset him. Upon complying with these demands O 'Harrow was warned to go
home as there would be no more work , whereupon he drove to the company tipple.
The undersigned finds that when the employees left the pit at the conclusion of
their work shift on August 23, about 150 pickets stopped and surrounded the cars
in which they were riding and, as Weakland creditably testified, Degretto gave
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1593
him, as well as the other employees, a union card which he told him to sign, "If
you know whats good for you." After thus signing union cards the employees
were permitted to leave. The testimony of Degretto and Kosick to the effect that
the employees stopped when the pickets, numbering approximately 100, waved to
them and that they simply asked the employees to sign union cards, is anything
but persuasive and is rejected. The undersigned further finds that on Septem-
ber 7, 1 of the pickets threw a dish of pickles through the window of a truck
striking employee Weakland and on the same date the truck in which employee
O'Harrow was riding was struck by an apple core thrown by 1 of the pickets.
Milliron testified that on the same day several vehicles had flat tires as they
entered the pit and an examination of the road revealed nails imbedded therein.
The undersigned is of the opinion that this evidence, while undoubtedly sus-
picious, is insufficient to support a finding that the Respondents or their agents
were responsible for this action.
In essence, counsel for the Respondents contend in this case, as in the remain-
ing cases, that various locals of the United Mine Workers, District 2, organized,
directed, and financed the picketing of these Companies and therefore the Re-
spondents are not responsible for the action and conduct of the locals and their
members. This contention, which is not accepted, is treated at the conclusion
of the presentment of the consolidated cases. (Infra, section III, I.)
After the General Counsel concluded his consolidated cases, counsel for the
Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint as to Respondent Widman for
lack of evidence, which motion was granted by the undersigned in all cases,
except the Cavalier Coal Company case. The latter case is discussed below.
In their brief, counsel for the Respondents contend that the evidence in the
consolidated cases fails to establish any responsibility on the part of Respondent
Mark for the course of action adopted by other Respondents and locals not parties
to these proceedings. Mark credibly testified that although he had knowledge
of picketing activities by local unions in the fall of 1951, he did not know what
companies were being picketed and he did not participate in any such activities.
There is no evidence that Mark made any demands whatever upon the Com-
panies or that he participated in any meetings or discussions except in the
Cavalier case, concerning this dispute with any of their representatives. Further,
the record is barren of any evidence indicating that Mark had any prior knowl-
edge of the organizational drive planned by certain locals, or that representatives
of the locals advised him of the drive, or that he participated in the same.
Seemingly, the General Counsel seeks to hold Mark personally responsible on
the theory that he adopted and ratified the program which was carried out, in
the manner found herein, by the other Respondents. As there is no evidence
that Mark ratified the activities found to be violative of the Act, therefore, the
undersigned finds that Mark did not engage in any unlawful conduct, nor did he
ratify any such activities. (United Mine Workers of America (West Kentucky
Coal Company), 92 NLRB 916, 917.)
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the undersigned finds
that the Respondents, except James Mark and Michael Widman, restrained and
coerced the employees of River Smokeless in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
The General Counsel argues that the statements made by Degretto to Milliron
and DuBois are sufficient to support a finding of a violation of Section 8 (b) (2)
of the Act. His evidence in this respect discloses that on August 23 Degretto
In the course of the picketing told Milliron that the Union intended to picket all
nonunion mines in the area until the operators signed agreements with the Union.
1594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Milliron then Inquired as to the terms of the agreement and Degretto pointed out
the Company would have to recognize the Union, deduct initiation fees, dues, and
assessments of employees, pay the union scale, and contribute to its welfare fund.
Milliron simply replied that Degretto would have to discuss terms with DuBois.
Degretto related that he merely informed Milliron that the employees had signed
union cards and requested a meeting with the Company. The undersigned be-
lieves that the General Counsel failed to sustain the burden of proof in establish-
ing the statements purportedly made by Degretto. However, assuming the
declarations were uttered by Degretto, the undersigned is of the opinion that
they do not constitute a violation of Section 8 (b) (2). First there is nothing
in Milliron 's testimony that Degretto made any mention, much less demanded,
that the Company had to execute an agreement which would require membership
of the employees in the Union as a condition of employment in order to eliminate
picketing activities. Irrespective of any other interpretation that might be placed
on Degretto's bare assertion that the Company would be expected to deduct
Initiation fees, dues, and assessments of employees, It certainly cannot be con-
strued as a forthright demand that the Company execute an agreement containing
an Illegal union-security clause. On August 28, DuBois and his attorney met
with Degretto and Kosick. On this occasion DuBois, in substance, refused to
recognize the United Mine Workers as the representative of the employees since
the Union was not authorized to so act by reason of its failure to comply with
the so-called noncommunistic provisions of the Act" DuBois admitted that he
did not engage in any contract negotiations with Degretto and Kosick. However,
in the course of the meeting he asserted that Degretto declared the Company
would have to sign an agreement which provided in part that the employees
would have to pay dues, which the Company would collect. DuBois stated that
the parties also discussed the subject of the employees joining the Union but he
did not relate the details of this discussion. The undersigned fails to see how
Degretto's statement can be viewed as a demand for an illegal union-security
provision, but granting that it was, it would still fail to meet the requirements to
establish a violation as set forth in the National Maritime Union case. (National
Maritime Union of America (The Texas Company), 78 NLRB 971.) In that case
the Board held that the Respondents had violated Section 8 (b) (2) by insisting
during negotiations for a collective-bargaining agreement upon the incorporation
in the agreement of an unlawful hiring arrangement, and by calling a strike
which had as its clear objective compelling the employer to accede to their un-
lawful demand for a hiring hall arrangement. In a subsequent case, Lumber
and Sawmill Workers Union (Santa Ina Lumber Company), 87 NLRB 937, the
Board, after reaffirming the principles in the above case, held that where the
negotiations between the company and the respondent union had never reached
the stage of insistence by either party on contract terms, whether for a union
shop or any other, and where the evidence failed to establish that the clear
objective of the strike called by the union was to compel the company to agree
to a demand for an unlawful union-shop arrangement, the respondent union had
not engaged in any conduct prohibited by Section 8 (b) (2). In view of the
foregoing decisions, the undersigned has no difficulty reaching the conclusion that
the Respondents in this case ( and the same applies in the Central Moshannon,
Howard , and Cavalier cases ) engaged in any conduct In violation of the above
provisions of the Act. Here, it is undisputed, and found, that the Company
"The record of the Board discloses that neither the International Union nor any of its
districts or locals have ever complied with the provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h)
of the Act. Therefore, these organizations were ineligible to invoke the processes of the
Board.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1595
refused to recognize or bargain collectively with the Union , hence it cannot be
said that at the single meeting held by the parties the Union demanded or insisted
that the Company execute, or agree to execute, a contract which provided for an
unlawful union-security clause. The undersigned further finds that while the
purpose of the picketing undoubtedly was to organize the nonunion mines and
to secure agreements with the operators the record is barren of any evidence
indicating that the clear objective of the picketing was to obtain a contract with
an illegal union-security provision.
The undersigned therefore finds that the Respondents did not engage in any
conduct in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and recommends that the complaint,
in this respect, be dismissed.
D. Central Moshannon Coal Mining Company
J. Howard Smith testified that during the times noted below the Company
was operating a strip mine , consisting of 3 different pits known as Strip Areas
No. 1 and No. 2, respectively , located in Knox and Jordan Townships in Clear-
field County. The Company also maintained a tipple situated about 3 miles from
its farthest stripping area. The Company employed about 12 employees at the
pits and tipple, and 3 truckdrivers.
The Events of September 17
Smith stated that he was at the tipple about 8 o'clock the morning of the
above date when the first truckload of coal arrived from the pit . Smith noticed
that the truck was followed by a car , which parked in the area , and he overheard
its 2 occupants ask the driver who owned the job . Smith then met the 2 indi-
viduals, who identified themselves as Kosick and Evans , representatives of the
United Mine Workers of America . Kosick told Smith that too much nonunion
coal was being loaded in the area and that it was going to be stopped. He
further stated that Smith "may or may not have heard of their organization
drive" but he "was going to have to sign their contract ," which would cost him
30 cents for each ton of coal loaded . Smith inquired if this was the only pro-
vision in the agreement and Kosick replied it was not that he would have to
sign "our contract ." Smith asked if this meant his employees would have to be
members of the Union in order to work and Kosick said yes, but not to worry
about it. Again , Smith asked if he would be required to collect union assess-
ments and dues and Kosick answered in the affirmative but that all it costs you
is 30 cents per ton of coal . Kosick said they did not have time to answer questions
but that they would return around 9 o'clock the next morning . Smith said that
during the conversation Kosick told him to call the purchaser of his coal and
see if he would pay an additional 30 cents per ton for the same. Admittedly,
none of Smith 's employees were present during this conversation . About 1
o'clock the same day Evans and 2 men returned to the tipple and asked Smith
if he had made up his mind to sign the contract . Smith pointed out that Kosick
and Evans had agreed to meet the following morning but Evans simply repeated
his demand . Smith asked if it was the same type of contract they had dis-
cussed in the morning and Evans warned if he was still undecided "we will
make up your mind for you," and told him to get his trucks off the highway, or
they would put them off for him and shut down the strip job. Smith, after
receiving a telephone call , asked if the strip job had been shut down and Evans
answered in the negative , but that unless he ceased stripping , the Union would
bring pickets to the job and shut it down . Evans and the 2 men then left.
Shortly thereafter , Smith drove out to Carnwath , a village located at the inter-
1596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
section of Legislative Route 17037, also referred to as the black-top road, and
the township road, a distance of about 1 mile west of the tipple. Normally
Smith's trucks passed through or by Carnwath in hauling coal from Strip Area
No. 1 to the tipple. When Smith approached the intersection of the above roads
he saw Kosick and Evans and from 50 to 75 pickets milling around on the road
and the trucks which were hauling his coal parked just off the black-top road
at Carnwath. One empty truck was parked on the township road. Smith drove
in a northerly direction to Strip Area No. 2, where he saw no one other than his
employees. He then proceeded in a westerly direction to Strip Area No. 1, where
he found the same condition existed. Smith then returned to the tipple, using
a dirt road that bypassed Carnwath. As he entered the tipple area Smith saw
Kosick and Evans leave in their car. Smith stated that his coal-hauling op-
erations were normal until Evans' second visit and thereafter no trucks came to
the tipple. As a result of his trip to Carnwath and the strip areas Smith, about
3 o'clock, decided to shut down operations at both the tipple and the pits. His
operations remained down from that day, Monday, until the following Saturday,
September 22. Between Monday and Friday Smith made daily trips to the
tipple and strip areas and every morning he observed from 25 to 75 pickets
gathered at Carnwath.
Arnold Glass, employed by the Company as a truckdriver, was hauling coal
from Strip Area No. 1 and used the normal route, described above, from the pit
to the tipple. On his first trip that morning Glass saw Smith talking to 2 men
at the tipple, 1 of whom he later learned was Evans. About 1 o'clock in the
afternoon Glass left the tipple with his truck empty to return to the pit. When
he reached Carnwath a group of about 35 pickets waved him off the black-top road
and told him he had to wait until Evans came back from the tipple to find out
whether the Company could haul coal that day. Glass stayed in his truck
with the pickets standing around the same. At that time Glass observed 1
loaded truck already parked off the road. While thus waiting Glass saw 2
loaded trucks coming from Strip Area No. 1 and as they came into Carnwath
a group of pickets waved them off to the side of the road. About 30 minutes later
Evans returned and told a group of men with him, "That's all, fellows." One of
the pickets told Glass that since he was empty he could leave. Glass asked Evans
if the loaded trucks could leave and he "shrugged his shoulders." Glass left
and returned to the tipple. He did not haul any more coal until October 11.
Harry Biss, truckdriver, stated he made two trips to the tipple that day but
made no mention of being stopped by, or seeing, any pickets However, be
next hauled coal on September 23.
Ellsworth Moore, tipple employee and truckdriver, worked on the tipple on
this day.
The Events of September 23
Smith commenced operations on Saturday, September 22, and operated in a
normal manner that day.
The Company also operated on Sunday, with Smith and employee Melvin
Witherow running the tipple.
In hauling from Strip Area No. 2 the trucks would proceed in a general south-
erly direction on a private road designated as No. 1 to the township road then
east to private road No. 2 which led directly to the tipple.
About 8: 30 in the morning Smith heard a commotion in the vicinity of the
tipple so he went to the intersection of private road No. 1 and the township road
where he saw about 12 pickets and 2 company trucks loaded with coal parked
off the respective roads. Biss and Moore, drivers of the trucks, were standing
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1597
by the vehicles. Smith asked the pickets what was the difficulty and 1 of them
stated that the Company would not be permitted to haul any more coal until
it "settled up with their organizer." The pickets also told Smith that the trucks
would have to return to the pit and be dumped. Smith refused to send back
the trucks and the pickets said they would dump them on the road. An argu-
ment ensued which finally resulted in the pickets offering to let the trucks go
through provided Smith did no more hauling. Smith agreed and the trucks
proceeded to the tipple where they were unloaded. The employees at the tipple
worked for about an hour and then all operations ceased. The Company re-
mained down until October 10.
Biss stated he was hauling a load of coal, along the route described above,
and as he reached the point where the township road runs into private road
No. 2, approximately 15 or 20 pickets, whom he could not identify, stood in the
road and flagged him to stop. As Biss could not drive by them he stopped and
1 of the pickets told him to pull over to the side of the road and dump his coal.
Biss said he could not dump there and asked if he could back the truck off
the road. The pickets agreed to this so Biss parked his truck off private road
No. 1 and started walking towards the tipple. Kiss met Smith who talked
to the pickets, out of his presence, and later Biss drove his truck to the tipple.
Biss did not haul any more coal until October 10.
Moore did not testify concerning the above incidents.
The Events of October 11 and 12
Smith started operations on the afternoon of October 10, and operated in a
normal manner, except that his trucks used a different route from Strip Area No. 1
to the tipple, which bypassed the village of Carnwath.
The next morning Smith drove from the tipple to Strip Area No. 2 and he
observed 4 cars drive in and park near the intersection of private road No. 1
and the township road. Smith continued to operate at least 3 trucks, but about
11 o'clock 50 or 75 pickets gathered on the township road and the trucks, which
were running in convoy style, "could barely creep through." He also noticed that
on returning from the tipple to the pit the trucks were stopped by the pickets.
Smith saw Kosick and Feast with the pickets but he had no conversation with
them. About noon or 1 o'clock the pickets left and Smith worked the rest of
the day.
The following morning Smith stated that about 50 cars parked on the town-
ship road near the intersection of private road No. 1, blocking the use thereof.
As Smith's loaded trucks came down this private road the pickets got out of
their cars and walked on the road completely blocking the same. The drivers
of the trucks turned into a ditch, left their trucks and walked toward the pit
while the pickets cursed and shouted to them to come back. Operations then
ceased and were resumed on October 21, after the Company had secured a re-
straining order against the Union in the county court.
Glass said that on October 11 he was hauling from Strip Area No. 1 and in
driving to the tipple he used a different route from the one ordinarily used.
Nothing unusual occurred on the first trip but on his second trip he was stopped
by 15 or 20 unidentified pickets at the intersection of private road No. 1 and the
township road and asked if he was hauling house coal. Glass replied he was
not hauling house coal and the pickets told him he had better stop hauling as
more men were coming to the scene. Glass then proceeded to the tipple, un-
loaded, and returned to Strip Area No. 1. On his return trip Glass saw a number
1 598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of pickets following an individual obviously described as Kosick" Glass loaded
at the cut and while pickets were present Glass was able to drive through with
the help of State Police. Upon reaching the tipple Glass asked that someone
ride with him and Lester Shaffer was assigned to accompany him. Glass waited
for the arrival of 2 other trucks and, after they unloaded the 3 trucks, left the
tipple, each carrying a rider. The trucks, driving in convoy, hauled the
remainder of the morning with State Police still in the vicinity of the cut. The
pickets were lined along the private road at the cut, as well as along the route,
walking in front of the trucks and cursing and shouting to the drivers. The
pickets left about 1 o'clock in the afternoon and about 3: 30 when the trucks
had finished hauling and were leaving the tipple a group of some 10 pickets
stopped them and told the drivers there would be no more hauling and if they
had to come back there would be serious trouble.
The following morning Glass was driving the lead truck in a convoy of 3
trucks, carrying the same personnel as on the previous day. Glass was proceed-
ing on private road No. 1 towards the township road and, when about 500 feet
from the latter, he saw a large number of cars parked in the area. As the convoy
continued on the men, about 75 in number, left the cars and stood on the private
road blocking the same. When Glass approached to within about 100 feet of
the pickets he pulled off to the side of the road, stopped, and got out the truck.
The other trucks also stopped and the drivers and riders all walked back up the
road, towards Strip Area No. 2, while the pickets cursed them and shouted to
them to drive the trucks through. Smith's brother picked up Glass and the
other employees and drove them to the cut where they had parked their cars.
Glass said he made no effort to move the trucks until after an injunction against
the Union had been obtained.
Shaffer testified substantially the same as Glass concerning the incidents of
October 11 and 12, which occurred while he was riding with Glass.
Biss said that on October 11 he saw from 50 to 70 unidentified pickets at the
intersection of private road No. 1 and the township road and while they shouted
at him and crowded the private road he was able to drive through. Biss also
stated that one of the pickets climbed on the running board of the truck and
attempted to open the door, but Biss kept moving and the man jumped off. On
subsequent trips that day Moore rode with Biss as he drove in convoy with 2
other trucks. Later the same day the convoy was stopped by a group of pickets
who stated they should not haul any more coal that day. The group also stated
it was a good thing the State Police had been present in the morning or they
would "really have fixed us."
Biss worked on October 12, and his version of the incident at the intersection
of private road No. 1 and the township road is substantially the same as related
by Glass.
Moore stated he rode with Biss on October 11, and about 75 pickets stopped
them for a few minutes and told them they better not haul any more coal.
Moore was also riding with Biss the next day when about 75 pickets stopped the
trucks as they were approaching the township road. His account of this incident
is substantially the same as stated by Biss.
Witherow testified that on October 11 he was driving one of the trucks in the
convoy and saw Evans with a group of pickets at or near the intersection of
the private road No. 1 and the township road.
v Glass observed Smith talking to Evans and another man on the morning of September
17, and identified the leader of the pickets as the man with Evans. It is clear Kosick
and Evans conferred with Smith on this date.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1599
Glass, Shaffer, Biss, and Moore stated they were never asked to join the Union.
Witherow was not questioned on this subject.
Evans testified that he was employed by District No. 2 as miners' commis-
sioner " and was a member of Local 860, located at Colver. Evans stated that
about September 15 he attended a meeting of Local 860 and the subject of non-
union tonnage was discussed by the membership some of whom reported com-
plaints in this respect from the Ebensburg Coal Company, which had an agreement
with the Union. Evans said that nonunion tonnage "was a continuing problem"
so the local decided to go into the area for the purpose of organizing the employees
on these jobs.
On September 17 Evans and Kosick and a number of men from the local
went to Central Moshannon, located about 35 miles from Colver. Evans and
Kosick met Smith and informed him that a number of his employees had signed
cards designating the United Mine Workers of America as their bargaining
agent and requested that he discuss contract terms. Smith said he would have
to talk to his brother and invited Evans to come back later. Evans made a second
visit to Smith that afternoon and while they had a general discussion nothing
developed. Evans denied that he told Smith that he would have to pay a royalty
of 30 cents per ton to the Union or that his employees would have to become
members of the United Mine Workers of America, or that he presented any,
agreement to Smith. Smith, according to Evans, said "If you fellows want me
to, I will go up to the pit and shut the job down." Evans replied, "That's fine ;
go ahead and do that ; we don't want to see nonunion tonnage if we can help it."
During the course of this conversation Evans said that Smith received a tele-
phone call that his trucks had been stopped so he, Evans, left and went to the
black-top road (Legislative Route 17037), a quarter of a mile distant, where the
pickets were stationed. There Evans saw 3 or 4 trucks pulled off the road and a
"congregation" of men talking to the drivers who were signing union cards.
Evans had no further discussions with Smith.
Kosick stated that on September 17 he and Evans saw pickets about a quarter
of a mile from the tipple so he asked 1 of the group if there was anything they
could do to help out. Kosick and Evans then drove to the tipple where they met
Smith. Kosick explained the purpose of the visit and Smith said his brother was
in charge of operations and was expected in about 30 minutes. After a short
while Smith told Kosick and Evans he did not believe the Company was in a
position to sign an agreement with the Union but Kosick said to wait until
his brother arrived. The group talked for awhile and Smith remarked that
pickets were on the highway and did they want him to shut down the mine.
Kosick replied if he wanted to, it was a good idea, and satisfactory to them.
Kosick and Evans left but returned several hours later and talked to Smith
and his brother. Kosick, or Evans, stated that the pickets were out to organize
all nonunion jobs, that they were acting as their spokesman, and would like them
to consider signing a contract. One of the Smiths replied he was familiar with
the Union's contract and under present conditions he could not sign up and
compete in the market. Kosick denied that he or Evans made the statement that
if a contract was signed all of the employees would be required to become mem-
bers of the Union. Kosick said that the Company's operations were picketed
almost daily from September 17 until the date of the issuance of a temporary
restraining order about the middle of October, and that every day the pickets
were present he made two trips to the operations to see "if anything occurred."
u His duties consisted of adjusting disputes arising under contracts between the Union
and the operators.
1600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusions and Findings
As set forth above, Kosick and Evans called upon Smith the morning of Sep-
tember 17 and requested that he sign "our contract" under which the Company
would be required to pay royalties to the welfare fund. Smith asked if his
employees would be forced to become members of the Union and if he had to
collect union dues, and Kosick said yes, but not to worry about it, that all it
would cost the Company was 30 cents on each ton of coal produced. Kosick said
he did not have time to discuss contract terms and agreed to return the fol-
lowing morning. In any event Smith did not agree to sign any contract.
Early the same afternoon Evans again called on Smith and inquired if he was
ready to sign an agreement and when Smith reminded him that they had ar-
ranged to meet the following morning Evans reiterated his demand that an
agreement be signed. When Smith asked if he was referring to the same type
of agreement as mentioned at previous meetings, Evans declared that if he,
Smith, was still undecided concerning the acceptance of the contract, "we will
make up your mind for you," and warned him to take his trucks off the high-
way or the Union would put them off and shut down the job. During the course
of the conversation Smith received a telephone call and then asked Evans If
he had shut down the job and Evans replied he had not, but unless the Company
ceased stripping, the Union would bring in pickets and close down operations.
The meeting concluded and Smith then drove to the village of Carnwath where
he saw his trucks, which were hauling coal, parked off the road and surrounded
by a large number of pickets. Evans and Kosick stated that at the first meet-
ing they informed Smith a number of his employees had joined the United
Mine Workers and requested him to discuss contract. Smith said he would
have to talk to his brother and invited them to come back later. Both Evans
and Kosick denied that they advised Smith the Company would have to sign
an agreement providing for union security and royalty payments. Kosick also
stated that Smith asked them if they wanted him to shut down in view of the
pickets patroling the highway and Kosick replied that this was satisfactory to
them. The meeting then concluded. Evans said Smith's suggestion to cease
operations was made to him at the second meeting. Evans also admitted that
at that time Smith received a telephone call and was advised that his trucks
had been stopped. Evans then left and drove out to the highway where he
saw 3 or 4 trucks pulled off the road and a "congregation" of men signing up
the drivers. Kosick related that Smith and his brother were present at the
second meeting and that he, or Evans, informed them the pickets were out to
organize all nonunion jobs, that they were spokesmen for the pickets, and re-
quested the Company to sign a contract. Apart from the fact that the state-
ments of Kosick and Evans were made in the course of conversation with Smith,
as distinguished from collective-bargaining negotiations , there is still nothing
in these utterances which would even remotely indicate that the Union was
demanding or insisting upon an illegal union-security clause . Indeed, the con-
trary would seem to be true for, accepting Smith 's testimony, Kosick simply
stated in answer to his inquiry that while the employees would be required to
join the Union, the Company did not have to worry about that provision. The
undersigned therefore concludes and finds that neither Kosick nor Evans made
any unlawful demands for an illegal provision upon the Company.
The undersigned further finds that Smith did not voluntarily offer to cease
operations because of the presence of pickets on the highways. Kosick 's version
of this offer is plainly refuted by Evans, plus the fact that the Company con-
tinued to operate following the morning meeting. The testimony of Evans is
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1601
also unconvincing for at the very time Smith is alleged to have made the offer,
admittedly he received a telephone call that his trucks had already been stopped
by the pickets. In addition to Smith's testimony, employee Glass testified his
truck with halted by Evans and a group of pickets for about 30 minutes when
Evans permitted him to leave. The undersigned so finds. Following this
stoppage Smith did not attempt to operate until September 22. The undersigned,
on the basis of the testimony of Smith and employee Biss, finds that on Septem-
ber 23 a group of from 15 to 20 pickets stopped the Company's trucks on or near
the company road leading to the tipple and demanded that the coal be dumped.
The pickets finally allowed the trucks to proceed only after Smith had promised
to do no more hauling, and thereafter the Company did not operate until
October 10.
The undersigned accepts the testimony of Smith, Glass, Shaffer, Biss, and
Moore, as detailed above, and finds that on October 11 and 12, from 50 to 75
pickets blocked the company roadway leading from the pit, as well as the road
leading to the tipple, and effectively prevented the free ingress and egress of
company trucks thereon. Following this action the Company made no effort
to operate until about October 21, and then only after a restraining order had
been obtained against the Union. Kosick admitted that the Company's opera-
tions were picketed practically every day from September 17 to about the middle
of October and on each such occasion he made 2 visits to the operations to see
"if anything occurred."
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the undersigned
finds that the Respondents, except James Mark and Michael Widman, restrained
and coerced the employees of Central Moshannon Coal Company in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. Having
found that neither Kosick nor Evans made any demands upon Smith that the
Company execute an agreement containing an illegal union-shop clause, the
I espondeuts did not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. It is therefore recommended that the complaint,
insofar as it alleges a violation of this nature, be dismissed.
E. Banner Coal Company
Kenneth W. Chandler, superintendent, testified that during 1951 the Company
operated 3 strip mines, 1 located near Henderson Crossroads, about 3 miles
from Houtzdale, and the other 2 near Morann. The latter mines are not in-
volved in this proceeding. The Company also operated a tipple located near
Mascot, approximately 1 mile from the mine at Henderson Crossroads. The
Company employed about 9 men at the mine operation and about 3 men at the
tipple.
The Events Occurring on and After September 17
Chandler was at the tipple about 7 o'clock in the morning preparing to load
coal when LeCorre and another man, both of whom were known to Chandler,
drove onto the property. LeCorre asked Chandler who was operating the job
and if he planned to load coal that day. Chandler replied that Wallin was the
operator and that he intended to load coal. LeCorre inquired if the Company
had loaded much coal that week and Chandler answered he had done so about
3 times. LeCorre and the other man then left. About 15 minutes later LeCorre
returned and again asked Chandler it he intended to load coal and he again
answered in the affirmative. LeCorre then asked if Chandler "would stop
1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
peaceably ... or would he have to go out and bring some men ... I can have
one hundred men here in a matter of minutes." Chandler told LeCorre he
would talk to the employees at the pit and if they wanted to stop it was all
right and if they wanted to work he would attempt to do so. LeCorre and the
man left. No company employee was present during these conversations.
Chandler drove to the pit and repeated the statements made to him by LeCorre
to about 5 of the employees . Chandler told the employees it was up to them
whether they would continue operations and they decided not to work. How-
ever, Chandler instructed the employees to load about half a truckload of coal
and send it to the tipple in order to fill a railroad car then at the tipple. About
10 minutes after the partially loaded truck had left, LeCorre and 6 or 7 men
came into the pit and passed out union -application cards to the employees.
Chandler, in the presence of employee Raymond Kasubick , asked LeCorre the
reason for this action and he stated that there was too much nonunion coal
being shipped from the district and "he and his men . . . were out to stop it."
Chandler advised LeCorre that he had decided to stop loading coal and inquired
if he could continue stripping operations . LeCorre said , "absolutely not. He
did not want us to strip ; he did not want us to load; he did not want us to do
anything." LeCorre then engaged in conversation with 1 of the contract haulers.
Chandler told the employees to prepare to shut down operations and stated he
would notify them when work was resumed . The Company did not operate
again until about October 12, when an injunction was obtained against the Union
in the county court. During the above period Chandler stated that several hun-
dred pickets congregated every day at Henderson Crossroads , which was only
about 400 yards from the pit, and on 1 occasion he saw Kosick with them. While
the Company did not attempt to operate in this interim Chandler and 2 of the
employees , the Kasubick brothers , went to the pit for the purpose of repairing
the equipment.
Raymond Kasubick , shovel operator , said that he and about 5 other employees
had finished loading a partial truckload of coal when LeCorre and a group of
men came into the cut. LeCorre gave Kasubick a union -application card and
told him to "sign it." While Kasubick accepted the card he did not sign the
same. Chandler , in the presence of Kasubick , asked LeCorre if they could con-
tinue to strip coal and the latter stated , "No, you better not do anything." Kasu-
bick said he and the employees then decided to go home. Several days later
Kasubick and his brother went to the pit to repair some equipment and while
working, a carload of men came down but left without talking to them. Kasubick
and his brother made 2 to 4 such trips to the pit and on 1 occasion 2 men came
down and asked if they had joined the Union . Kasubick 's brother said they had
not joined and after discussing the benefits of union membership , 1 of the indi-
viduals stated , "Well, you just won't work until you do sign up." Later, about
October 2, Kasubick was driving to the pit in his car, following his brother who
was driving a pickup, when about 25 to 50 pickets stopped them at Henderson
Crossroads . Kasubick stopped alongside the pickup and heard the pickets tell
his brother , "you are not working down there today." When his brother ex-
plained they were doing repair work , the picket replied , "If you do, you won't
have a pickup." During the course of the conversation 1 of the men , who had
visited them at the cut, asked what was going on and when advised by the
pickets that "These boys want to work," he remarked to the Kasubicks , "Remem-
ber what I told you before." Kasubick and his brother turned around and went
home.
Joseph Kasubick , maintenance employee , testified substantially the same as
Raymond Kasubick in respect to the events which occurred while he was engaged
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1603
in repair work and in regard to the incident at Henderson Crossroads when he
m as stopped by a group of pickets.
Michael Slifko stated that he was working in the cut on September 17, when
LeCorre told Slifko and his brother to stop work and handed them union-appli-
cation cards. Slifko and his brother joined a group of employees at the shovel
and LeCorre told the employees that too much nonunion coal was being loaded,
that it would have to stop, and asked the employees to join the Union. Follow-
ing this Chandler told the employees that there would be no work until further
notice.
LeCorre said that on September 15, he received a telephone message that
pickets would be in Madera on September 17. On the latter date LeCorre went
to the appointed place where he met the pickets, who were members of the
Madera local, and then the group drove to Henderson Crossroads. LeCorre,
accompanied by 3 members of the Local, drove to the tipple. There LeCorre
met Chandler and inquired if the Company intended to work that day and
Chandler replied, yes. LeCorre stated, "Mr. Chandler, the pickets have arrived.
I am asking you if you won't shut down the job." Chandler asked if he had
any objection to his getting 1 truckload to finish loading a railroad car and
LeCorre replied he had no objection to this request. Chandler said he would
shut down operations after completing the loading of the railroad car. There
were no pickets or employees present during this discussion. Following his
conversation with Chandler, LeCorre drove back to Henderson Crossroads. There
he met about 16 pickets who informed him that the Company was hauling coal
out of the cut and they wanted to go in and talk to the employees. LeCorre and
the pickets went into the cut where they found Chandler talking to a group of
the employees. LeCorre asked Chandler if he intended to abide by his agreement
to cease operations and Chandler said he intended to do so. LeCorre and the
pickets then passed out union-application cards to the employees, and discussed
the benefits of union membership with them. However, none of the workers
signed the cards. LeCorre also asked the employees to quit work, which they
agreed to do. LeCorre left the cut and shortly thereafter the employees went
home.
The following morning LeCorre went to the strip but found no one, neither
employees nor pickets, around the property. LeCorre was not present on the oc-
casion when the pickets stopped the Kasubick brothers at Henderson Crossroads.
Conclusions and Findings
There is little, if any, dispute concerning the facts in this case. LeCorre
admitted that on September 17, he told Chandler the pickets had arrived and
asked him to shut down the job. Chandler said the question of whether the
Company would operate was up to the employees and he would abide by their
decision in the matter. Upon informing the employees of LeCorre's position
the men decided not to work, whereupon the Company shut down, and remained
down until about October 12. The undersigned finds that the shutdown was
occasioned by no unfair labor practices on the part of the Respondents.
In the above interim Raymond and Joseph Kasubick testified, and the under-
signed finds, that they went to the pit about 4 times to perform maintenance
work and on 1 of these occasions, sometime prior to October 2, a group of
pickets came to the pit and asked if they had joined the Union. When the
Kasubicks replied they had not the pickets stated "You just won't work until
you sign up." Again, about October 2, the Kasubicks testified, and it is so found,
that while driving to the pit they were stopped by a group of pickets at Hender-
son Crossroads and told they could not work and if Raymond Kasubick at-
1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tempted to do so he would not have his pickup truck. While there is no specific
evidence that the Respondents were present on the foregoing occasions, under
all the circumstances, and as urged by the General Counsel, the undersigned
finds that the Respondents are responsible for the acts and conduct of the
pickets.
The undersigned finds that the Respondents, except James Mark and Michael
Widman, restrained and coerced the employees of Banner Coal Company in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
F. Elba Coal Co., Inc.
Linehard Kuntz, foreman, testified that the Company operated a strip mine
about half a mile from Henderson Crossroads, known as the Henderson or Echo
Run job, a tipple at Carnwath, and another strip mine in the area of the tipple.
The Company also had a mine at Ansonville which was operated by a con-
tractor, Benjamin Coal Company. Kuntz stated that there were 2 entrances
to the Henderson job from Henderson Crossroads ; 1 in the direction of Brisbine
about a quarter of a mile distant, and the other in the direction of Sanborn,
approximately the same distance from Henderson Crossroads. Each of these
roads connected with a private road leading to the pit.
Kuntz stated that operations at the pit ceased about noon September 17, and
at the tipple and nearby pit in the latter part of the month. These operations
remained down until about October 8, when they were resumed after an injunc-
tion had been obtained.
Thomas Stodart, oiler on the shovel, stated that about 7: 30 the morning of
September 17, he drove to the Henderson job and at the Sanborn entrance he
saw from 30 to 35 men, 1 of whom he recognized, but they did not stop him and
he went into the cut. Stodart worked with George Mohnal, shovel operator, in
the cut until about 10: 30 when the shovel broke down and it was necessary for
him to go to Madera for parts. As he drove out the Sanborn entrance he saw
about 75 men, 1 of whom was LeCorre. On his return to the pit Stodart used
the Brisbine entrance because it was closer to the shovel. After the shovel had
been repaired and Stodart and Mohnal were about to start working LeCorre and
3 men came up and handed them union cards. LeCorre and his men told them
to finish their shift but not to come back and added, "We don't want any trouble ;
there is too much nonunion coal going out, and we are going to stop it." The
group then left the pit. Stodart did not sign the card and he and Mohnal worked
until 3 o'clock when Stodart had to make another trip to Madera for parts. As
Stodart drove out the Brisbine entrance LeCorre, who was with about 15
pickets, stopped him and asked where he was going. Stodart explained his
trip and LeCorre said, "Make damn sure you don't show up tomorrow." Stod-
art answered, "0. K." and drove on. Upon his return to the pit Stodart saw
the group at the entrance but they did not attempt to stop him. Stodart worked
the rest of the day but did not report for work the following day.
Mohnal, shovel operator, said he and Stodart worked all morning except for
a period when the shovel broke down. Mohnal stated that after dinner, about
12: 30, LeCorre and 3 men came to the shovel and asked if they were starting
up again and he replied that they were. LeCorre told Mohnal and Stodart,
"there's too much nonunion coal going out in this district and we don't want to
have no trouble and we don't want to see nobody down the pit." He told them
to finish their shift but to "make it the last one." LeCorre gave them union
cards, with the wage scale, which Mohnal did not sign and the group then left.
Mohnal and Stodart worked until 3 o'clock when the shovel again broke down
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1605
and Stodart went to town for parts. Mohnal, apparently after Stodart returned,
said they went home and repaired the shovel at a later date.
John I. Pusey stated be was employed as an oiler on the shovel operated by
Samuel McCoy. About 7:45 the morning of September 17, he drove to the pit
and at the Sanborn entrance he saw about 30 pickets. Pusey stopped his car,
as did McCoy who was following him, and asked the pickets "If this was it."
Someone answered they did not know but "maybe it could be." About that
time LeCorre came up and inquired if Pusey worked at the pit. Pusey said
he did and LeCorre remarked that he would see him later. Pusey and McCoy
then drove to the pit and went to work. About 8: 30 LeCorre and 3 men came
to the shovel and told Pusey and McCoy there was too much nonunion coal
being shipped and it would have to stop. The group handed union-application
cards to Pusey and McCoy and told them to decide what they wanted to do.
LeCorre stated he did not know how long they would be allowed to work but
he would see them later. The group asked where the other shovel was located
and after receiving directions left the area. LeCorre and the men returned
about 12 o'clock and talked to McCoy, who was eating his lunch, while Pusey
was oiling the shovel. After the group left Pusey asked "if this was it," and
McCoy said , "Yes, we have to shut it down." Pusey and McCoy "talked it over"
and decided the only thing to do was to shut down and report to the foreman,
which they did.
William Vasbinder stated he was employed "pumping water" at the tipple
and also worked in the pit. Sometime between September 17 and 25, Vasbinder
was at the water pump, apparently at the Ansonville strip, when a number of
cars stopped on the road about 100 feet distant and 1 of the occupants told
him to "come on up." Vasbinder asked them to come down and a group of
the men went to him. One of the group, whom he could not identify, said
there were 250 men present and asked Vasbinder if he wanted to sign a union
card. Vasbinder said he was too old and the group left. The following day the
group again called on Vasbinder and asked him to sign a union card but he
refused to do so. Subsequently, at some undisclosed date, Vasbinder was work-
ing at "No. 5 tipple" when he was told by Kuntz or 1 of the drivers to gas the
trucks at Carnwath tipple. Vasbinder went over to Carnwath in 1 of the
trucks and after filling it with gas 3 cars drove up and the occupants asked if
they were hauling coal that afternoon. Vasbinder said he did not know and
1 of the group stated they were not going to load that afternoon. Vasbinder asked
if they would haul the next day and the individual replied he thought they
would. The group told Vasbinder if the trucks came down the hill with coal
there would be trouble. Vasbinder informed the truckdrivers of this conver-
sation and apparently they did not haul coal. Vasbinder could not identify any
of the men in the group. At some later date, which Vasbinder fixed as about
1 week after he was first asked to sign a card at Ansonville, he was reporting
for work at the Carnwath tipple and saw a large number of cars parked on the
private road and about 50 pickets in the area of the tipple. Vasbinder was
told by the pickets as well as his foreman to come up to the scale house, a very
small building. Vasbinder went into the scale house where he met a large
dark-complexioned fellow, the same one who had approached him at Ansonville,
3 or 4 "union boys," and Dick Hawkins, company weigh boss. The pickets
remained in the immediate vicinity of the scale house. The large man told
him, "you will have to sign a card," and Vasbinder asked if the other employees,
6 were at the tipple that morning, had signed up. He was told that the employees
had done so, whereupon Vasbinder signed the card, and went to work.
257905-54-vol. 103-102
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
George D. Cornely, an employee of the Company, testified that on the above
occasion he saw about 150 pickets in the tipple area . Cornely was called to
the scale house and while pickets were standing around the door he was given
a union card, which he signed. After the employees had signed cards the pickets
left and they went to work.
Leonard Smeal, employed by the Company as truckdriver, stated that on the
morning of September 28, he was hauling coal from one of the pits to the
Carnwath tipple and observed a number of parked cars and about 150 pickets on
the company road leading to the tipple. Smeal proceeded to the scale house and
about the time he weighed in, 4 or 5 men approached him while he was in the
truck and told him that the employees including truckdrivers had signed union
cards and asked him to sign up, which he did.
Kuntz testified that about September 19, he and employee Nelson drove to the
Henderson pit and as he was turning off the highway into the Sanborn entrance
about 100 pickets stood in the road and stopped them. One of the pickets stated
that they had "orders" to let no one enter or leave the pit. Kuntz asked who
their spokesman was and he was informed it was "Cosack." After some conver-
sation the pickets permitted Kuntz and Nelson to enter the mine property and
the former told the pickets that if their spokesman arrived they would be in
the pit for a short time. During the period the Henderson pit was shut down
Kuntz drove past the property about 3 times a week and on each time he saw
20 to 30 pickets at each of the entrances. Kuntz made no attempt to enter the
pit on any of these vists to the property.
William A. Nelson, oiler, stated that he was riding with Kuntz on the above
occasion when they were stopped by unidentified pickets at the Sanborn entrance.
Nelson said that one of the pickets told him they could not go in because "Mr.
Yonky" left orders no one was to enter the pit. After a brief discussion they
were allowed to proceed to the pit. Kuntz and Nelson remained in the pit for
about 15 minutes and when they left the pickets were still at the entrance.
LeCorre said that on September 17 he and 3 members of the Madera local
drove into the cut, apparently from the Sanborn entrance, and talked to a shovel
operator and an oiler who was running the shovel. LeCorre explained the
advantages of membership in the union and gave them union-application cards,
as well as the wage scale, and asked them to sign the same. The employees
stated they might lose their jobs if they signed up but LeCorre assured them
their action would be kept secret and told them to think it over and mail the
cards to the Union. LeCorre and his group then left. He informed 30 or 40
pickets, who were at the entrance, of the above conversation with the employees.
Several hours later LeCorre returned to the pit, while the employees were eating
lunch, and asked them to shut down the job and advise their employer that the
Union desired to meet with him. The employees said they would comply with
his request and ceased working. LeCorre also saw the Stodart boys at the
Brisbine entrance, and, after explaining the Union to them, asked them to shut
down and notify their employers that the Union desired to meet with him. The
employees then stopped working and went home.
Conclusions and Findings
In substance, Stodart and Mohnal testified that pickets were present at the
pit entrance on the morning of September 17, and that later in the day LeCorre
accompanied by 3 men came into the pit while they were working. There
LeCorre complained of the nonunion coal being mined in the district and
asserted that the Union intended to stop it. LeCorre expressed the desire that
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1607
there be no trouble in this respect and then passed out union cards with the
request that they be signed. He also informed the employees that they could
finish their present shift but to "make it the last one." During the day Stodart
had to go to Madera for parts and while driving out the Brisbine entrance Le-
Corre and about 15 pickets stopped him and asked where he was going. When
Stodart explained the purpose of his trip, LeCorre permitted him to leave but
warned him not to work the next day. Pusey testified that LeCorre made 2 trips
to the pit where he and McCoy were working and on the first occasion told them
that the shipment of nonunion coal must be stopped and requested them to sign
union cards. He further stated that he would notify them when to cease work.
Later in the day LeCorre returned and, after talking to McCoy, both Pusey and
McCoy decided to shut down operations. LeCorre said he simply asked the em-
ployees to sign up in the Union and later returned to the pit and requested the
employees to stop working, which they agreed to do. LeCorre admitted there
were 30 or 40 pickets at the pit entrance that day and he reported at least 1 of
his conversations with the employees to them. The undersigned credits the
evidence adduced by the General Counsel and finds the statements, actions,
and conduct of LeCorre to be coercive under all the circumstances. The under-
signed finds , as related by Kuntz and Nelson, that about September 19, approx-
imately 100 pickets temporarily blocked the entrance to the Henderson pit and
prevented Kuntz and Nelson from entering the same. The undersigned, on the
basis of the testimony of Vasbinder, Cornely, and Smeal, further finds that in
the latter part of September approximately 150 pickets came to the tipple which
action caused 6 employees then working to cease operations. While the pickets
remained in the area the employees were instructed to sign union cards and
upon complying with this demand they were allowed to resume work.
The undersigned finds that the Respondents, except James Mark and Michael
Widman, restrained and coerced the employees of Elba Coal Co., Inc., in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
G. Howard Coal Mining Co7npanV
As appears above, Howard Coal Mining Company is a sales corporation which
obtains all its coal from Diamond T. Strip Mining Company. Dominic Berlanti,
secretary of Diamond T. Corporation, herein called the Company, stated that
it operated 2 strip mines, 1 in New Millport and the other, known as Oak Ridge,
near McCartney. The Company also maintains a tipple at Kellytown, about 2
miles from Oak Ridge. In September the Company employed about 20 or 25 men
at the Millport strip, about 12 employees at Oak Ridge, and about 9 employees at
the tipple.
The Meeting With the Union on September 11
Berlanti said that he arrived at the tipple about 9 o'clock in the morning and
met Degretto, accompanied by 3 men, who stated he was an organizer for the
United Mine Workers and wished to talk to him. The group went into the scale
house where Degretto explained the purpose of his visit was to organize all
nonunion operators and to secure a contract. Degretto said the Union wanted
30 cents on each ton of coal produced and that all of the employees would be
required to become members of the United Mine Workers. Berlanti inquired
if the terms were the same as those in deep mine operations and Degretto re-
plied the same contract applies to both deep and strip mines, except for the
wage scale. Berlanti stated he did not have final authority in such matters
and would have to call the company office in New York. Degretto asked if
1608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Berlanti could have an answer by Friday , it was then Tuesday , and he said he
would try to have one by that time . As Degretto was leaving he said he would
inform the "boys at Ebensburg" of this meeting and if there was a chance of
getting an agreement he would go along with the Company, "if not we have
about five hundred men waiting over the hill."
In substance, Degretto said he told Berlanti he was interested in organizing
the nonunion operators and wished to discuss contract terms with him. Ber-
lanti said he would contact the New York office and they agreed to meet on,
September 14. Degretto denied that he told Berlanti that if an agreement
was signed all of his employees would be required to become members of the-
Union.
The Meeting of September 14
On this date Degretto , with Kosick and Evans , came to the tipple and asked
Berlanti if he had any news for them . Berlanti stated he needed more time
and Degretto said he would be back the following Wednesday , September 19.
The group then left . Degretto did not attend any subsequent meetings.
The Meetings of September 17 and 18
Kosick and Evans came to the Kellytown tipple on Monday, September 17,
and when Berlanti informed them he had no news they stated they would be
back the next day.
The following morning Kosick and Evans went to the tipple on two occasions
and at their last visit Berlanti informed them he had talked to the New York
office and that the Company could not sign an agreement with the Union. Evans
said, "O. K., let's keep it clean ," and left.
The Picketing of September 19
Berlanti said that about 7: 30 the morning of the above date he, his partner,
Julius Bernardino, and 3 employees were driving in his station wagon from
Philipsburg to the Kellytown tipple on Route 453. As the group approached
the first building, the repair shop, Berlanti observed about 150 cars parked on
both sides of the road, but not at the entrance, for a distance of about 800 feet
along the highway. Berlanti turned off the highway and drove to the repair
shop, which was located about 75 or 100 feet from the highway. He then took a
pickup truck and proceeded to the plant, a short distance from the shop. Ber-
lanti said there were 300 or 400 pickets in the immediate vicinity but they did
spread out and allow him to reach the fuel pump. Kosick announced to the
pickets that Berlanti was "the boss" and, after Berlanti put gas in his pickup,
Kosick asked him to leave because he wanted to speak to the employees. Ber-
lanti then picked up 2 of the employees and drove to the Oak Ridge strip. There
were no pickets present at the strip and the employees went to work. However,
the tipple did not operate that day and remained down until about October 20,
when an injunction was obtained against the Union.
Andrew Sorczyk, shovel operator, testified he was driving the station wagon
and as he approached the tipple area he saw cars lined on both sides of the road
and about 400 pickets. Sorczyk parked the station wagon and then rode to the
strip operation, apparently with Berlanti, where he worked that day.
Garmen Zuccarelli, mechanic and all-around man, said he was riding in the
station wagon and saw cars and pickets in the vicinity of the tipple. After
parking the station wagon, Zuccarelli, Sorczyk, and Berlanti drove to the Oak
Ridge pit.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1609
Events Subsequent to September 19
Berlanti said he went to the Kellytown tipple 2 or 3 times a day, except Sunday,
between the above date and October 20. He stated that there were from 200 to
800 pickets at the property every day, that the pickets were stationed at the en-
trance to the plant, and that "the tipple was covered with men." Berlanti said
the pickets permitted him to enter the property.
Zuccarelli stated that after September 19 he passed the tipple frequently and
saw Kosick and a large number of pickets in the area. He also went into the
tipple on several occasions to pick up gas and observed Kosick speaking to the
pickets.
The Discussions Between Kosick and Berlanti
About September 20, Berlanti, Sorczyk, and Zuccarelli met Kosick and Evans
at the Oak Ridge strip and Berlanti asked if he could continue stripping. Kosick
said , "no, Sou cannot do any stripping, but it is all right to do repair work; you
guys get stripping and you get a load of coal uncovered, and you get anxious,
and then trouble would start." Berlanti said "0. K." and left.
Sorczyk said that Berlanti asked Kosick if he was going to stop the stripping
job and he replied, "yes, we will come to that eventually because if you get too
much coal uncovered you might get ideas."
Kosick stated that Berlanti stopped his car and, after exchanging a few words,
he told Berlanti he hoped he was in a position to sign a contract that day.
About 4 or 5 days after the tipple shut down Berlanti was working in the Oak
Ridge cut when Kosick came down and asked what he was doing. Berlanti said
he was putting in a drill to eliminate water and that he was removing and stock-
piling coal. Kosick told him not to load any coal "or there will be trouble."
Jesse White, dragline operator, stated that Kosick came to the cut and asked
if Berlanti was around. Apparently White said he was not at the cut. Kosick
asked White what he was doing and when he answered digging a drainage ditch,
he said , "Well, you won't be doing it much longer." Berlanti arrived about that
time and engaged in conversation with Kosick.
Berlanti stated that about 2 weeks after the tipple shut down he and Bernardino
met Kosick at the Oak Ridge pit. Kosick remarked that he understood Berlanti
was not to engage in strip operations and Berlanti said it was up to his em-
ployees ; that he would strip as long as they wanted to work. Kosick stated
"the boys in Ebensburg" would not like that and might start trouble. Berlanti
had no further discussions with Kosick but saw him practically every day, seem-
ingly until about October 20, on the highway and at the tipple.
Kosick testified substantially the same as Berlanti in regard to the discussion
at the above meeting, except that he denied making any statement concerning
"the boys in Ebensburg."
Kosick's Discussions With the Employees
Zuccarelli stated that 2 or 3 weeks after September 19 he was working at the
Oak Ridge cut with Sorczyk and Peter Malinky, when Kosick approached them
during their luncheon period. Kosick asked the group if they were going to
join the Union like all the "other boys." He also pointed out the benefits of
union membership and stated it "would be cheaper" to join at once rather than
wait until some later date. Kosick did not pass out any union cards and ap-
parently the employees did not express any desire to join the Union so he
left the cut.
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Malinky said he was present on the above occasion and that Kosick , after men-
tioning the benefits of union membership , told them "the sooner you get in, the
easier it will be for you."
Sorczyk stated Kosick asked them to become members of the Union and he
told him he was not interested in union benefits at that time. Kosick remarked
"it would be easier if you join now than it will be later on."
Kosick related that he met 3 employees at the cut and in response to his
questions was informed that they were cleaning and stockpiling coal . Kosick
then discussed the Union with them for about 30 minutes and while they were
interested in organization they refused to sign cards because they were fearful
of losing their jobs. Kosick said 1 of the employees brought up the subject of
initiation fees and he explained that under the union constitution the fee was
$50. However, he stated that in conducting this drive District 2 had granted
a "special dispensation" to the locals and reduced the initiation fee to $10.
The Testimony of Donald Bernard Dugan
Dugan, formerly employed as parts man, stated that on September 19 he
drove a company station wagon to the tipple and saw about 300 pickets most of
whom were standing around the tipple property. Upon arriving at the shop,
Dugan drove a truck to the fuel pump which was located about 20 feet from the
entrance, to obtain gas for trucks at the other jobs. The pickets called him
names but did not prevent him from getting the gas. Kosick came to Dugan
and, after identifying himself as an organizer for the United Mine Workers,
asked him if he would like to join and Dugan told him he did not wish to
become a member . Dugan then left the tipple and worked that day at one of
the other jobs.
Thereafter, Dugan said that every morning he drove to the parts shop there
were a number of pickets on the highway and he had difficulty in entering the
property. On one such occasion, about September 26, the pickets parked their
cars so that Dugan was unable to gain entrance to the shop and it was necessary
to summon the State Police who ordered the pickets to move the cars.
Kosick testified that when be and the pickets were at the tipple on September
19, he asked Berlanti if it was all right for the pickets to park in the tipple
yard and Berlanti said , "I guess so."
Several days after the above incident Dugan drove to the fuel pump at the
tipple and saw Kosick addressing a group of pickets. After Dugan had ob-
tained gas Kosick asked if he had finished his work and when Dugan replied
that he had Kosick told him to leave as he had something to say to the men.
Dugan then left.
On another occasion Dugan went to the tipple where he saw Kosick and about
100 pickets. Kosick introduced Dugan to Gabelli, an organizer for the United
Mine Workers, and 1 or both of them asked Dugan to sign a union -membership
card, which he refused to do.
Kosick testified that at one time he met Dugan at the tipple and introduced
him to Gabelli. On this occasion he asked Dugan if he was ready to sign a
card but that he refused to do so . As Dugan was leaving he congratulated
Kosick on keeping the pickets peaceful and the latter replied that, "they are
peaceful as long as everything else is peaceful here."
Dugan stated that on another occasion he was driving a company coal truck
and as he stopped at a stop sign Kosick , who was in a car, told him he wanted
to talk to him . Kosick and 2 other men came to the truck and asked Dugan
what he was doing and he answer?d hauling parts . Kosick said he could find
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1611
something more comfortable to haul parts than a big coal truck and Dugan
replied he had heavy parts. Kosick stated, "I hope you don't get any foolish
ideas about hauling coal," and Dugan replied that that was up to the Company.
Kosick denied making the above remark.
Dugan said that about 2 weeks after picketing commenced he was working
in the parts shop and saw a group of pickets throwing stones at the parts build-
ing and at empty railroad cars.
Damage to Company Property
Berlanti testified that at the commencement of the picketing the Company
had about 8,000 tons of coal in its stockpile at the Kellytown plant. The stock-
pile was situated about 50 feet off the highway, Route 453 , and about 45 feet
below the road. Berlanti stated that about October 20, he found rocks, beer
cans, and debris in the coal pile which had to be cleaned off by a group of labor-
ers before the coal could be loaded on railroad cars. Berlanti also stated that
the coal caught on fire and about 6,000 tons were destroyed. Berlanti did not
see any of the pickets throwing any objects into the coal pile, nor did he see
anyone start the fire therein. Berlanti admitted that fires of this nature occa-
sionally start spontaneously.
Berlanti further stated that about October 20 he found a broken window in
the scale house and a radio, part of a 2-way radio system, lying on the floor.
In addition Berlanti said that debris had been thrown into the coalbins and
that an aluminum building at the plant had about 6 holes in the roof.
Sorczyk said that about September 29 he went to the tipple where he saw
about 75 pickets in the immediate vicinity of the tipple building. Sorczyk and
Zuccarelli went to work inside the building and while thus engaged the former
said "hard objects" hit the roof off and on for a period of about 2 hours.
Zuccarelli stated that while working with Sorczyk in the tipple building he
heard "a bang" and looked out the window where he saw a group of pickets
up on the road throwing stones at the building and railroad cars.
Kosick stated he made his "rounds" of jobs being picketed and denied that
on any of these visits he ever saw the pickets throw sticks or stones at any
employees of the respective companies.
Conclusions and Findings
At their meeting of September 11, Berlanti related that Degretto advised him
the Union was organizing all nonunion operations and requested the Company to
sign an agreement which included a union-security clause and also the payment
of royalties to the union welfare fund. Berlanti replied that he did not have
final authority in such matters but would contact the home office of the Company
and try to have an answer for Degretto within 3 or 4 days. As the meeting
concluded Degretto stated he would inform the "boys at Ebensburg" of the dis-
cussion and if there was a chance of securing an agreement he would go along
with the Company, otherwise "we have about five hundred men waiting over
the hill." Degretto's version of the meeting is substantially the same except
that he told Berlanti that he wished to discuss contract terms and specifically
denied that he made any statement or demand that the terms of the agreement
would require the company employees to become members of the Union. On
September 14, Degretto, Kosick, and Evans asked Berlanti if he had any news
concerning the agreement and when he requested more time the group said they
would return later. Again, on September 17 and 18, Kosick and Evans visited
Berlanti for the same purpose and on the latter date Berlanti advised them the
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company could not sign an agreement with the Union. For the reasons stated
in the River Smokeless case, supra, the undersigned finds that granting Degretto,
Kosick, and Evans made the statements and engaged in the conduct as stated
by Berlanti, this testimony under all the circumstances is wholly inadequate to
warrant a finding that they thereby engaged in any violation of Section 8 (b)
(2) of the Act. The undersigned finds, as stated by Berlanti, Sorczyk, Zuccarelli,
and Dugan, that 300 or 400 pickets were present on the tipple property when the
above group reported for work on September 19. Kosick was with the pickets
and announced to them that Berlanti was "the boss." After Berlanti had put gas
in his pickup, Kosick asked him to leave as he wished to talk to the employees.
Berlanti and 2 of his employees then left. The tipple did not operate that day
and remained down until about October 20, when an injunction was secured
against the Union. During this period Berlanti said there were from 200 to 800
pickets at the plant entrance and at the tipple but he was permitted to enter the
property. About September 20, Berlanti, with Sorczyk and Zuccarelli, met
Kosick and Evans, and Kosick, in response to Berlanti's inquiry in regard to
stripping coal, stated the Company could not engage in such operations because
they might get "anxious," and obviously attempt to haul, then trouble would
start. Sorczyk and Zuccarelli testified to the same effect. Kosick said he and
Berlanti merely exchanged a few words and that he told Berlanti he hoped he
was in a position to sign an agreement that day. The undersigned accepts the
testimony of Berlanti, Sorczyk, and Zuccarelli and finds that Kosick refused to
permit the Company and the employees to resume stripping or hauling operations.
Several weeks after the picketing commenced Kosick went to the Oak Ridge cut
and told employees Zuccarelli, Sorczyk, and Malinky that it would be cheaper
or easier to join the Union at that time but they refused to do so. Kosick ad-
mitted he asked the employees to sign cards and pointed out that during this
drive District 2, under "special dispensation," had reduced the usual initiation
fee of $50 to $10. The undersigned finds nothing coercive in Kosick's acts or
remarks, but the reduction in the amount of the initiation fee, as fixed in the
international union constitution, by District 2 fully supports the theory of the
General Counsel that both the International Union and District 2 jointly engaged
in and conducted this organizational campaign. Dugan testified that about
September 26 the pickets parked their cars in such manner that he was unable
to gain entrance to the shop and had to summon State Police who ordered the
pickets to move their cars. Kosick said that on September 19 he asked Berlanti
if the pickets could park in the tipple area and he replied, "I guess so." Ber-
lanti did not testify on this phase of the case. Assuming Berlanti made the
above remark, and it must be remembered from 300 to 400 pickets were present
at the time, nevertheless the undersigned cannot construe this statement as
blanket authority to the pickets to park their cars on company property at any
and all times in the future or in the manner described above. The undersigned
therefore finds that about September 26 the pickets effectively blocked ingress to
the shop and prevented employee Dugan from entering the same. The General
Counsel adduced evidence that the pickets damaged company property during
the course of the picketing. Dugan testified he saw pickets throwing stones at
the parts building and empty railroad cars. Sorczyk related that while he and
Zuccarelli were working in the tipple building he heard "hard objects" hit the
roof and Zuccarelli testified he saw the pickets throwing stones at the building
and railroad cars. Kosick declared he never saw any of the pickets throwing
stones or any objects at company buildings. While it may be true that Kosick
never witnessed such conduct, the undersigned, in view of the direct testimony
of Dugan, Sorczyk, and Zuccarelli, finds that the pickets did engage in the acts
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1613
set forth above. Berlanti testified that he found much debris in a stockpile of
coal and also that the pile caught on fire which resulted in the loss of about 6,000
tons of coal. Berlanti conceded that he did not see any pickets throwing debris
on the coal pile or start the fire therein. He further admitted that fires of this
nature do occasionally start spontaneously. The undersigned finds that this
evidence is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that the pickets were responsible
for the damage occasioned by either the debris or the fire. For the same reason
the undersigned finds that the pickets were not responsible for the damage to the
radio system in the scale house, as asserted by Berlanti.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the undersigned finds
that the Respondents, except James Mark and Michael Willman, restrained and
coerced the employees of Howard Coal Company in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. Having found
that Degretto, Kosick, and Evans made no demand for an illegal union-shop
agreement, the foregoing Respondents have not engaged in any violation of
Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act, and, accordingly, it is recommended that the
complaint, in this respect, be dismissed.
H. Cavalier Coal Company, Inc.
W. A. Russ, president of the Company, stated that at the times mentioned
below the Company was engaged in 4 stripping operations, in Blair and Cam-
bria Counties, 3 of which were known as the Decker, McNeilis, and Kenner jobs,
and the remaining job designated as "a mountainous piece of property" located
in the vicinity of the "Oil House." All of the properties were leased from the
Eichenlaub Estate. The Company also operated a tipple, or cleaning plant, and
a loading dock at Gallitzin. In the area of the cleaning plant the Company
maintained its scale house through which it cleared all coal for shipment. All
the Company's coal was transported by contract truckers, one of which was
Butler Coal Company. The Company employed about 40 employees.
The Meetings With Union Representatives
Russ stated that about August 12 he met Degretto, Raymond, Evans, and an-
other individual in front of a restaurant in Coupon where Degretto said he was
back to see him and "this time we mean business." Russ asked what was the
trouble and Degretto informed him "We have a new campaign to organize all
the nonunion mines, and we intend to do it. It looks like you are Number One
on the list." The group discussed union organization and the economic effect of
nonunion operations in the industry. At the conclusion of the discussion, which
lasted about 1 hour, Degretto told Russ to think it over and that he would be
back to see him.
Degretto said that about August 11 Raymond and Howard Delaney, president
of the Coupon local, requested him to join them in discussing an agreement with
the Company. The next day the group met Russ and had a lengthy discussion
with him during which Degretto asked him to sign an agreement. Russ re-
fused to do so because he could not meet the union scale and royalty payments.
Russ stated that around August 17 Degretto, Raymond, and perhaps Evans
came to the office at the scale house. Russ told Degretto he knew that since
the Company was paying above the union wage scale he could not "get to my
men" and asked how the employees would benefit by membership in the union-
Degretto said that was "secondary," that he wanted 30 cents a ton royalty and
was "going to get it." Degretto told Russ to think it over and added, "let's
1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
don't go through what we went through two years ago; I don't like it any better
than you do, because believe me, I'm telling you it's going to be rough. I have
a job to do and I intend to do it." Degretto said he intended to stop the Com-
pany's operations if it took every miner in Cambria County. Russ asked how
many miners were in the county and Degretto said 4,000. Russ stated he had
also had a job to do whereupon Degretto remarked, "You'll see plenty of me,"
and left.
Degretto said he discussed the whole matter with Russ for about 30 minutes.
He denied making any statement that it was going to be rough or that he would
stop the Company's operations if it took every one of the 4,000 miners in the
county.
The Events of September 12
Russ testified that the Company was hauling coal from the cleaning plant to
the loading dock at Gallitzin and while he was standing in front of the office
a car drove past heading toward the cleaning plant. Someone shouted at the
driver who stopped near the scale house. Paul Eichenlaub, an employee of the
Company, approached the car, in which there were 4 unidentified men, and
Russ heard 1 of them ask if this was the nonunion mine that puts out so
much coal.
Eichenlaub, whose duties are discussed below, said that the 4 men simply
drove to the job, turned around , and left. Later in the day Eichenlaub saw
the same group at the Coupon entrance to the job and recognized one of the
men as an official of the local Union. Eichenlaub said the pickets were asked
why the trucks were being held up and they answered you know the reason.
The pickets further stated that there were 950 to 1,000 men on the way to shut
down the job.
Russ seemingly drove to Coupon with Eichenlaub where he saw 4 men carrying
rocks. He asked the men what they were doing and they told him that he
would find out ; that 9,000 men were coming and he had better get his trucks off
the road. Russ then left but returned later and saw that 2 loaded coal trucks,
belonging to Butler Coal Company, had stopped. He observed a member of
the group standing on the running board of 1 of the trucks with the door open
and as Russ approached , the man jumped off, and the trucks drove on.
The Picketing on and After September 17
Russ said that on September 17 he was driving to his Coupon operation and
as he approached the entrance, which is about half a mile from the village of
Coupon, he saw about 100 cars parked on a ball field near the entrance and about
500 pickets on the street or road . Russ drove past the entrance and used another
entrance, Buckhorn, which ran through the woods to his office. During the day
Russ returned to the Coupon entrance and said the street was "blocked solid"
with pickets. Russ did not attempt to use this entrance but drove on to the Mc-
Neilis entrance where he observed about 50 pickets on the property and the road-
way. Russ continued on to the Buckhorn entrance where there were no pickets
In the period September 17 through October, Russ stated that he went to the
Coupon entrance nearly every day and saw from 300 to 500 pickets near the
entrance and at the ball field. Russ said he used the entrance several times
while the pickets were present. In the same period Russ testified that he visited
the MeNeilis entrance almost every day and saw from 50 to 200 pickets at this
entrance . He was able to enter the property on different occasions by driving
very slowly through the pickets . There were no pickets at the Buckhorn en-
trance until the Company commenced hauling coal or clay , about September 25,
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1615
and from that date forward from 50 to 300 pickets were stationed at the en-
trance. Russ stated that he saw Degretto and Raymond at the above entrances
with the pickets on about 20 occasions.
In early October the Company opened a new road to its operations, known as
the Glen White entrance, and as soon as it began using this entrance from 50 to
150 men picketed the area. Picketing thus continued for a period of 2 or 3
weeks until the Company obtained an injunction against the Union in the Blair
County court. Degretto and Raymond were present during the picketing.
Sometime during September, while the picketing was still current, Russ com-
menced hauling clay from the pit to Altoona. At the very outset of this operation
Degretto called on Russ at his office one morning and asked Russ, in the presence
of Eichenlaub and 1 or 2 employees, if he was hauling clay. Russ admitted that
it was his clay being hauled and Degretto said, "Well, we don't intend to allow
you to haul clay, coal, or beans, until you sign a contract." Russ stated that
Degretto was being "a little rough," that he had to move clay to get some income
-and Degretto remarked "That's just too damn bad."
Eichenlaub said the above meeting took place on September 25, and that he
heard Degretto say that the Company could not haul coal, clay, beans, or any-
thing from the property.
Malvin E. Goshen, employed by the Company as a welder, testified substan-
tially the same as Eichenlaub in regard to the conversation between Russ and
Degretto.
Degretto stated that he told Russ the pickets would not be "too happy" to know
he was hauling clay and that they would use their influence in talking to the
truckdrivers to see that clay would not be moved.
Russ testified that about September 25, he, Goshen, Eichenlaub, and John E.
Young, night watchman and relay man, followed 2 trucks which were hauling
clay. When the trucks and the ear driven by Russ reached Coupon, Russ saw
about 1,000 pickets in the village and along the street leading to the main high-
way. The trucks and the car proceeded slowly through the pickets and at one
point the State Police had to clear a path for them.
Eichenlaub testified to the same effect as Russ, except that he stated Butler,
rather than Goshen, was the fourth man in the company car. He further stated
that when the group in the car returned to the job, 2 more trucks were ready to
leave, so Eichenlaub, Butler, and Young followed them in the company car. On
this occasion, Eichenlaub said pickets were stationed at the Coupon entrance
and as the trucks and car approached the pickets scattered and ran along the
street where they had to pass. As the trucks drove through, the pickets began
throwing missiles and the State Police, who were in a parked car, then pulled
out and fell in back of the company car. As the group was proceeding along
the pickets threw missiles which damaged the right side of the car and a stone
struck the rear window. The police apparently stopped the convoy and got out
of their car. Eichenlaub remained in the company car and saw Raymond come
up the road with pickets around him "waving them to come on."
Young said he was riding in the car with Butler and Eichenlaub following the
clay trucks and as they passed through Coupon the pickets threw stones at
them, some of which struck the company car. The convoy then stopped while the
police went among the pickets and when they put some of the pickets in a police
car "a regular free-for-all" ensued. During this time Young alighted from the
car to take pictures of the pickets but when "stones started coming" he got back
into the car.
Raymond said that members of his local were picketing when the Company
was hauling clay and that the pickets became involved with the State Police
1616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and "things were looking pretty rough." When Raymond saw the commotion
he urged the men to refrain from any acts of violence and the pickets complied
with his request.
Francis Stiffier, truckdriver for Butler Coal Company, stated that during
September when he was hauling coal for Cavalier he was stopped by about 24
pickets in Coupon, who handed him a card and asked him to join the Union.
Stiffier did not sign the card and thereafter continued to haul coal for Cavalier
from Coupon to Gallitzin.
About October 23, Stiffier was hauling coal by way of the Glen White entrance
and about a quarter of a mile below that point, while following a truck owned by
Burkett, an independent trucker, he saw about 30 men who threw rocks at the
trucks. Stiffier and Burkett stopped about a quarter of a mile down the road
and reported the incident to State Police and a deputy sheriff, Victor Reed. The
driver of the other truck remained with Reed, and Stiffier continued to his
destination.
Reed testified that the above incident was reported to the State Police and
himself and that he saw a broken windshield on 1 of the trucks. Reed said
he and a lieutenant of the State Police took the rider in Burkett's truck back
to the area where the stoning occurred and while some pickets were there he
could not identify any of them. Reed further stated that he patroled the area
and constantly saw a large number of pickets including Degretto and Evans.
Raymond said he received a report that the pickets in the Glen White area
were being "a little unruly" so he went there and, in the presence of State
Police and the deputy sheriff, asked them to leave, which they did.
The Stoning Incidents
Norman Williams, employed as an oiler, said that at the end of his work shift
on September 26 he left the property by way of the McNeilis entrance in a group
of 5 cars. Williams, who was driving at the head of the group, saw a number
of pickets lined along the company road and a pile of rocks in the center of
the road about 300 feet from where it intersects the highway. The pickets opened
a path for him and as he drove through they called him names and told him to
stop. Williams proceeded on and someone threw a rock which struck his car.
Williams did not recognize any of the pickets.
McKinley G. Gallimore, employed as a dragline operator, stated he was driving
behind Williams and saw 8 or 9 men , whom he could not identify , throwing stones.
When Gallimore saw Williams being stoned he and the other employees returned
to the office. Shortly thereafter, the State Police arrived and Gallimore then
left the property.
Goshen testified that on September 28 the Company was hauling clay out of
the Buckhorn entrance and that he and several individuals were following the
trucks to see that they got through to the road. Goshen saw about 200 pickets
along the highway and as they were passing by 1 of the pickets threw a stone
at the trucks. Goshen stated that the State Police took the individual into
custody.
William Ball, employed as an oiler, stated that 1 day during the second week
of picketing he was driving out of the McNeilis entrance and saw about 100
pickets standing in and about the road. Ball said he was driving about 40 miles
per hour and when he entered onto the highway, stones were thrown at him
but he was not hit. Ball did not identify anyone in the group.
Miscellaneous Incidents
Harold E . Thompson , truckdriver for Butler Coal Company , stated that on
September 17 he was hauling coal for Cavalier and, while using the Buckhorn
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1617
entrance , he was stopped by about 75 pickets. One of the pickets , with a large
rock in his hand , climbed into the cab and threatened to beat Thompson if he
attempted to haul coal while they were picketing . Thompson said he saw pickets
at all entrances to the Cavalier job and that he was stopped about 20 times and
asked to join the Union.
Eichenlaub testified that about October 2 he was riding in a truck with
Butler and Goshen and as they approached the tipple at Gallitzen, Raymond,
accompanied by 2 or 3 men , shouted , "you better quit hauling or we will smash
your trucks."
Goshen said he was with Eichenlaub and Butler on this occasion and that
Raymond , who was with 2 or 3 men , waved his arms as if to stop the car and
then shouted the above remark to them.
Young stated that on October 23 there were between 200 and 300 pickets at
the Glen White entrance and while he was taking pictures of the scene, Raymond
"yelled to shut that damn thing up." A short while later Young was taking
pictures of the pickets and Raymond told him to stop, that if he did it again he
would turn Young over to the pickets. Young said 2 policemen were seated in
their car, which was parked about 20 feet from Young and Raymond.
Raymond did not testify concerning this incident.
Young further testified that on the morning of October 19 he and Eichenlaub
were driving around to see if there was any picketing and as they proceeded
through Coupon he saw 400 or 500 men assembled at the ball field. Young
observed Degretto, who was apparently standing on a box, addressing the
pickets and took a picture of the scene. Young said that Degretto remarked he
was getting bold taking pictures and then referred to the picture incident at
Glen White. Young stated that Degretto was with Raymond on the latter
occasion and that it was Degretto who did the talking, not Raymond. In
response to a direct question propounded by the General Counsel , Young said
the Coupon picture was taken on September 19, and when he identified the
picture, which was received in evidence, he stated it was taken on October 19.
Degretto testified that on 1 occasion, the date he could not recall, he spoke
to about 25 pickets at or near the Glen White entrance. After addressing the
pickets Degretto drove off in his car but then turned around and came back
to where the men were assembled . At this time he saw Young taking pictures so
he parked his car, walked over to Young, and told him to put his camera away,
that if he wanted his picture taken he would so advise him. Degretto said that
2 policemen were seated in a parked car about 50 feet away from them.
The Meetings with Union Representatives
While the testimony of Russ concerning his meetings with union representa-
tives in October is confusing and fragmentary , it seems that the following
meetings were held :
On October 20, Russ met Degretto and Evans , who asked when Russ was going
to sign a contract.
About October 22, Russ said he, Butler, of Butler Coal Company, and a repre-
sentative of Garfield Clay Refractories met Widman, Degretto, and several
others, for the purpose of discussing the hauling of clay . In the course of the
meeting the union representatives stated they wished to talk about the coal
contract but Russ said this was inappropriate and the parties agreed to discuss
the matter at a later date.
On October 29, Russ, with Young, Eichenlaub , and Butler present , met Widman
and Mark at his office . Russ said that Widman stated he was directing organiza-
tional activities among the nonunion mines in the district and Mark outlined the
1618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I
history of organization in the mining industry . Widman explained the union
initiation fees and dues the men would have to pay and when Russ said he did
not know whether his employees would be interested he said they would come
around when the Company signed up. The parties also apparently discussed the
union royalty of 30 cents on each ton of coal produced. Russ asked what would
happen if he could not "go along" with the Union and Widman replied, "You'll
never know when we will be back and hurt your business." The meeting, which
lasted for about 3 hours, concluded with Widman stating that they would con-
tinue to come back until the Company came around.
Widman said that Mark did most of the talking at the meeting and discussed
the history of organization and the economic ills of the industry . He denied that
he made any statement to the effect that he was directing organizational activi-
ties in the district. Widman stated that he told Russ to think over the matter
and then confer with them later. Russ said he was not ready to discuss any con-
tract and the meeting ended. Widman stated he later telephoned Russ 3 or 4
times and asked him to meet with them but on each occasion Russ said he had not
changed his position concerning the contract.
Conclusions and Findings
As appears above, Russ was informed by Degretto, on August 12, that
the Union was conducting a campaign to organize all nonunion mines in the area,
and that Cavalier was "Number One on the list." The parties generally dis-
cussed union organization and the effect of nonunion coal upon the industry and
the meeting concluded with Degretto telling Russ to think it over and that he
would see him later. Degretto admitted that, at the request of local union of-
ficials, he met with Russ and requested him to sign an agreement but that he re-
fused to do so because he could not afford to pay the union scale and royalty
payments. About August 17 Russ again met with Degretto, who apparently
stated the Union wanted an agreement providing for the payment of royalties
to the welfare fund and if such an agreement was not obtained the Union would
stop the Company's operations. Degretto said he discussed the matter with Russ
but denied making any threats to shut down the Company's operations if it did
not sign a contract. The General Counsel does not contend that Degretto engaged
in any unlawful conduct during the foregoing meetings . The undersigned agrees,
and so finds. Seemingly, the Company continued to operate without any inter-
ference until about September 12. On the latter date 4 unidentified men drove up
to the company office and asked Eichenlaub if this was the Company producing
so much nonunion coal and then left. Apparently, Russ and Eichenlaub drove out
to the Coupon entrance where they saw the same group performing picket duty.
Russ said the men carried rocks and when he asked them what they were doing
they replied he would find out, that 9,000 men were coming and he better get his
trucks off the road. Eichenlaub stated he inquired of the pickets as to the reason
for stopping the trucks and they answered you know the reason. The pickets,
according to Eichenlaub, also declared that about 1,000 men were on their way
to shut down the job. The testimony of Russ and Eichenlaub concerning the
events at the Coupon entrance is plainly inconsistent. Thus, Russ charged the
pickets with carrying rocks while Eichenlaub made no mention of any such act.
Again, Eichenlaub gave the impression that trucks had been halted by the pickets,
whereas Russ related that the pickets told him 9,000 men were coming and to get
his trucks off the road. Eichenlaub's testimony that the pickets openly threat-
ened to shut down the job receives no corroboration from Russ . Finally, Russ
testified that he left but later returned and saw 2 Butler Coal Company trucks
parked and 1 of the pickets standing on the running board . When Russ ap-
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1619
proached the truck the picket jumped off and the trucks drove on. The under-
signed concludes that the evidence, being of a vague and uncertain character,
is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that the pickets engaged in any unlawful
conduct on this occasion. Counsel for the Respondents assert that Eichenlaub is,
and was, employed in a "managerial" capacity. In describing Eichenlaub's du-
ties, Russ said that at the time in question "he did engineering work, took sam-
ples of coal, run property lines, bought property and any errand or any other
work delegated to him." Eichenlaub testified that he was an hourly paid em-
ployee and performed engineering work, acted as weigh-master, watchman, took
samples, and in general did "a little bit of everything." Eichenlaub is also a
trustee and beneficiary of his father's estate which owns the leases under which
the Company operates. The undersigned is of the opinion that Eichenlaub's in-
terests are more closely related to management than to the production employees
and accordingly finds that he is, and was, employed in a managerial capacity.
About September 17, Russ stated, and it is found, that approximately 500
pickets assembled near the Coupon entrance and at the ball field and that the
street was "blocked solid" with pickets. Thereafter, and until the latter part
of October, from 300 to 500 pickets were present near the Coupon entrance and
fom 50 to 200 pickets were stationed at the McNeilis entrance, but Russ was able
to occasionally use these entrances by driving slowly through the pickets. The
pickets also appeared at the Buckhorn and Glen White entrances when the
Company began using the same in the latter part of September and October,
respectively. About September 25, while the Company was engaged in haul-
ing clay, Degretto warned Russ, in the presence of employee Goshen, that the
Company could do no hauling whatsoever until it signed a contract. Since
Degretto did not specify that the contract must contain an illegal union-security
clause, the undersigned finds that his remarks were not of a coercive character.
The undersigned finds, on the testimony of Russ, Eichenlaub, and Young, that
about the same date these individuals escorted 2 trucks which were hauling clay,
approximately 1,000 pickets gathered in the street of Coupon and that the State
Police had to clear a path for the trucks. The undersigned further finds, on the
basis of the testimony of Eichenlaub and Young, that when a second convoy of
trucks drove through Coupon the pickets stoned them and when the State Police
attempted to arrest some of the pickets, a "free-for-all" followed. Raymond
admitted that the pickets became involved in a fracas with the police but when
he urged them to refrain from violence they complied with his request. Later,
about October 23, Stiffer testified he was hauling a load of coal, following an-
other truck, when some 30 pickets threw stones at them a short distance from
the Glen White entrance. Stiffer and the other driver immediately reported
the incident to State Police and Deputy Sheriff Reed. Reed verified the report
of the incident and stated 1 of the trucks had a broken windshield. He further
stated that he, the State Police, and the rider in 1 of the trucks returned to the
scene of the stoning where they found pickets but the rider was unable to iden-
tify any of them. Raymond said he received a report that the pickets in the
Glen White area had been "a little unruly," so he went to the place with the
State Police and Reed asked the pickets to leave, which they did. The under-
signed accepts the testimony of Stuffier and Reed and finds that the pickets
stoned the trucks which resulted in damage to 1 of the vehicles. The undersigned
credits the testimony of Williams and Gallimore and finds that, about Sep-
tember 26, the pickets threw rocks at the car driven by Williams as he and other
employees were leaving the property by way of the McNeilis entrance. Simi-
larly, the undersigned finds that the pickets threw stones at Ball as he was
driving out the McNeilis entrance and that on or about September 28 Goshen
1620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
received the same treatment as he was driving out of the Buckhorn entrance.
The undersigned on the basis of the evidence adduced by the General Counsel
further finds that on September 17 about 75 pickets stopped Thompson and
threatened to beat him if he attempted to haul coal while picketing was being
conducted , and that , about October 2, Raymond and 2 or 3 pickets warned Goshen
that "you better quit hauling or we will smash your trucks."
While counsel devoted some time to the so-called picture -taking incidents as
related by Young, the undersigned attaches no significance to these acts. Apart
from the confusing nature of Young's testimony in this respect , the undersigned
finds nothing objectionable, much less unlawful , in the remarks directed to
Young by either Degretto or Raymond . Counsel for the Respondents also argue
that Young was a supervisory employee since Williams referred to him as
"night foreman" and "told him what to do." In view of the evidence adduced
by Russ and Young concerning the duties of the latter , plus the fact no other
employees except Williams referred to Young as a foreman, the undersigned
finds that he was not employed in a supervisory capacity . While, as stated
above , the testimony of Russ concerning the meetings with union representatives
in October is confusing and fragmentary, it seems reasonably well established
that Degretto and Evans met with Russ on October 20 and inquired as to wh$n
he was going to sign a contract. Again, on October 22, Widman, Degretto, and
several others , in the course of a meeting held to discuss other subjects, asked
Russ to discuss contract terms but he refused to do so and the parties agreed
to meet at a later date. The evidence fails to disclose any illegal conduct on
the part of Degretto, Evans, or Widman at either of the above meetings. On
October 29, Widman and Mark met with Russ who stated that Widman an-
nounced he was directing organizational activities while Mark outlined the
history of union organization in the mining industry . Widman also explained
the wage scale "and the initiation fee and the dues the men would have to pay."
Russ replied that he did not know whether his men would be interested since
they were making good money and Widman said they would come around "when
you sign up." Russ asked Widman what would happen if "we can not go along
with you" and Widman stated, "You'll never know when we will be back and
hurt your business ." The meeting concluded with Widman saying that they
would continue to call on Russ until "you do come around." Widman testified
he and Mark visited Russ for the purpose of discussing "the possibility of
getting a contract" but Russ informed them he was not ready to discuss any
agreement. Mark, according to Widman, discussed union organization and he
simply "chimed in now and then " with remarks or suggestions . Widman denied
that he told Russ he was directing the union drive. At the conclusion of the
meeting Widman asked Russ to give the matter consideration and confer with
them later. Thereafter, Widman telephoned Russ 3 or 4 times and requested
a meeting but Russ advised him that he had not changed his position concern-
ing the contract. From Widman's testimony it is undisputed that the purpose
of the meeting was to secure an agreement with the Company. However, Wid-
man was not questioned concerning the terms of the proposed agreement, or
the manner in which it was presented . It would seem , from his version of the
meeting, that Russ, upon being advised of the purpose of their visit , told them
he was not ready to talk contract with them and there was no discussion on
this subject by the parties . On the other hand , Russ made no mention whatever
of any request to sign or accept a contract on the part of either Widman or
Mark . Although Russ testified that Widman explained initiation fees and dues
the men would have to pay, this statement , considered in the context of his testi-
mony, is meaningless insofar as it might be construed as a demand for an illegal
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1621
union-security clause, for Widman may very well have made the remark during
the lengthy discourse on the history of organization by Mark. The undersigned
concludes that the evidence in respect to the events transpiring at this meeting
is vague, indefinite, and uncertain and therefore wholly insufficient to support
a finding that Widman or Mark requested the Company to sign, or to agree to
sign, any contract which provided that the employees would be required as a
condition of employment to become members of the Union. As set forth above,
Russ testified that Widman asserted he was directing organizational activities
in the district. Widman specifically denied that he made any such assertion.
Since the undisputed evidence discloses that Widman took no part in the organ-
izing campaign it seems unlikely that he would have uttered such a false and
misleading statement. The undersigned accordingly rejects the testimony of
Russ and finds that Widman did not make the foregoing remark. The under-
signed concludes that by reason of the foregoing meeting it may not be inferred
that Widman and Mark thereby ratified, acquiesced in, or approved the coercive
acts previously engaged in by the pickets, for the record is devoid of any evidence
indicating that they had any knowledge of such conduct.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the undersigned
finds that the Respondents, except James Mark and Michael Widman, restrained
and coerced the employees of Cavalier in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. The undersigned further finds
that the Respondents did not engage in any unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
I The responsibility of the International and District 2 for the picketing
Counsel for the Respondents contend that various locals of District 2 initiated,
conducted, and directed the campaign to organize the nonunion mines and the
picketing occurring in connection with the drive, and therefore the International
and District 2 are not responsible for such activities. The Respondents produced
certain officers of local unions to substantiate this contention.
Ralph Barto, president of the Coalport local, stated that after receiving com-
plaints from its members about nonunion mines the local held a special meeting
on August 16, at which it was decided to "picket these nonunion strips and see
if we could organize them." The local sent invitations to 15 or 20 other locals
under the jurisdiction of District 2 asking their support in the matter and as the
locals responded, arrangements were made to picket the jobs. Prior to picketing
Barto called Widman and told him the time and place of picketing and asked
that an organizer be made available to the local. Thereafter, Degretto, Kosick,
and Gabelli were present when the local performed picket duty. However,
Widman did not appear on the picket line. Commencing about August 23, the
local picketed certain operators, not involved in these proceedings, and thereafter
from 150 to 300 members picketed River Smokeless on 4 or 5 occasions.
John Richardson, president of the Beaverdale local, stated that the member-
ship held a meeting on September 4, and decided to picket River Smokeless the
following day. Richardson notified Degretto that the local was going to picket
and requested him to be present to see that the pickets were orderly, to talk to
the Company in regard to a contract, and to do anything that might be of as-
sistance to the local. Richardson said that about 300 members of the local
picketed the Company on September 5. The members of the local also picketed
the Cavalier Company.
Bert Reese, president of the Revloc local, said that "word got around" that
the Coalport local was going to organize the nonunion mines so the local on
257965--54-voL 103--108
1622 DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August 18 decided to give assistance to picketing these jobs the first day the
members were not working. On August 24, some 500 or 600 members of the local
assembled in Revloc and drove to the River Smokeless operation , a distance of
about 50 miles . Upon their arrival at River Smokeless , Degretto "assembled
the men and coached them on what was going to happen and what might happen,
and what to do and what not to do." On this occasion some of the members
also picketed at other jobs but apparently about 300 men picketed in the River
Smokeless area. Thereafter , the local picketed various operators involved in,
this proceeding.
Lloyd McMullen, secretary of the Nanty-Glo local, testified that about August
25 the membership of the local adopted a motion to picket the nonunion mines,
on their idle days, in the Coalport -Irvona area . As McMullen was inexperienced
in organizational work and had previously consulted Degretto on matters that
"cropped up" in the local he informed Degretto of the action taken as well as
the time and place the local would picket. Degretto asked what he was to do
and McMullen replied he wanted him to speak to the pickets in order to exercise
more control over them and to explain union benefits to the employees of the
nonunion operators in the event they desired such information . On August 30,
about 250 members of the local picketed River Smokeless and Degretto , Gabelli,
and Lippi were present. McMullen said these individuals circulated among the
pickets and cautioned them to stay off the highway and to keep in their place.
Thereafter, some 500 members of the local picketed River Smokeless, Central
Moshannon, Diamond T., and Cavalier.
Kosick stated that about August 21 be received a telephone call from Degretta
who said that the Coalport local had advised him it was going to picket certain
operators the following day. The next day Kosick went to Ansonville where
certain locals were picketing jobs of operators not involved herein. There
Kosick met Degretto, and the two of them then asked Barto and Raymond what
they wanted to do. Barto and Raymond said they wanted Kosick and Degretta
to be present and available to talk to any operator who might be willing to sign
up with the Union and also to explain the purpose of the picketing to the union
members as well as to urge them to maintain a peaceful line. Kosick and De-
gretto agreed to act accordingly. As set forth above, Kosick and Degretto fully
participated in the drive and were present practically every day that picketing
occurred.
From the foregoing evidence it seems clear that the initial decision to or-
ganize and picket the nonunion mines was made by the Coalport or Gallitzin
locals and that other locals agreed to support and aid the program. However,
prior to carrying out the programs the officers of the locals uniformly contacted
officials of the International or District 2, and thereafter various representatives
of these organizations actively participated in the campaign. Thus, Barto
specifically requested the International to make an organizer available and
two of its representatives, Degretto and Kosick, as well as a district repre-
sentative, Gahelli, were assigned to the task. Again, Richardson and McMullen
testified that they discussed the matter with Degretto because he was in a posi-
tion to exercise more control over the pickets than they were. McMullen fur-
ther added that he was inexperienced in organizational work and believed it
necessary to have the assistance of Degretto in explaining the benefits of union
membership to the employees of the nonunion operators. Apart from the above
factors which prompted the locals to seek, and receive, assistance from the In-
ternational and District 2, the undersigned concludes that such action on the
part of the locals was an expected, if not mandatory, sequence flowing from the
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1623
relationship between the locals and the parent organizations . Thus, Mark
testified that once a charter is granted to a local the appropriate district as-
sumes jurisdiction over it and thereafter advises the local concerning its affairs
whenever " it is necessary ," or when the local requests such guidance. More-
over, Mark , in defining the purposes and objects of the district and the local,
declared that the primary function of the district , and his particular district
since 1898 , is the unionization of nonunion mines within its geographical limits,
while jurisdiction of the local is restricted to the mines under agreement and
normally its only function is to see that miners in a particular mine are members
of the appropriate local. Mark did state that locals "very often" attempt to
organize competitive nonunion operators "on their own hook ." Testifying on
this phase of the case, Kosick said that he had been organizing in the area for
the past 6 years and characterized the instant organizational drive as "unusual
in this sense , the Local Unions had taken it upon themselves , rather than the
Representatives or Organizers trying to organize for them." However , Kosick
conceded that, with the above exception , his participation in this campaign was
no different from the part he played in past organizational drives. The as-
sertions of Mark and Kosick , respectively , that locals occasionally engage in
organizational activities and that certain locals conducted the instant campaign
are neither convincing nor persuasive , are plainly refuted by the record herein,
and are therefore rejected . Counsel for the Respondents admit that the repre-
sentatives of the International and District 2 received their salaries and ex-
penses from their respective organizations while performing their duties in the
campaign . The acts and conduct of the various representatives are set forth
above and , of course , will not be repeated here. In addition to the fact that its
representatives actively participated in the foregoing course of conduct, the
undersigned also finds since the International had the authority to appoint the
president and secretary of District 2, who are responsible to the International,
the latter exercises sufficient control over the activities of District 2 to warrant
the conclusion that it is responsible for the acts of the district . The under-
signed therefore finds, as urged by the General Counsel, that the International,
District and the various locals engaged in a joint organizational drive against
the instant companies and their relationship in this enterprise was of such nature
the acts attributable to agents or representatives of each party to the common
venture bind not only his own immediate organization but also each of the
other participants . ( Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487; Union
Supply Company , 90 NLRB 436; Roosevelt Stafford , 94 NLRB 1091.)
The undersigned is of the opinion that Barto 's testimony to the effect that
he notified Widman of the local 's decision to picket and requested the assistance
of international representatives is inadequate to hold Widman personally re-
sponsible for all subsequent acts when the evidence clearly establishes the fact
that he did not partake in the picketing or engage in any unlawful conduct.
However, the undersigned wishes to expressly state that the foregoing con-
clusions and findings have no application in the Fetterolf case, to the extent
that the conduct of the Respondents therein is attributable to the Respondents
in the remaining six cases , and vice versa , that the Respondents in the latter
cases are responsible for the unfair labor practices found in the former matter.
The General Counsel concedes , and the undersigned agrees, that the Interna-
tional may not be held responsible for the reason that it is not even named as a
party in the Fetterolf case. Moreover , it strikes the undersigned that the Gen-
eral Counsel has considered and treated the Fetterolf matter as a separate
and distinct case and under the facts this procedure seems fully justified. Aside
1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the patent difference in respondents, it is undisputed, and is found, that
the activities in the Fetterolf case occurred in the interval April 10 to April
17, exclusively, whereas in the other cases the organization drive commenced
in August and continued through September or October. Thus, it is perfectly
clear that Fetterolf was not involved in the general campaign conducted by the
Respondent Unions and their agents, nor is there any evidence that Local 1113
or Lease joined in, or participated in, the program to organize the other compa-
nies. It is true, of course, that District 2 is a respondent, and has been found
to have engaged in unlawful conduct in all cases, but this fact, under the cir-
cumstances, does not alter the opinion of the undersigned in respect to the
responsibilities of the various Respondents herein.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Unions and their agents set forth above, oc-
curring in connection with the mining operations of the companies as appears-in
section I, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead, and have led, to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The General Counsel urges the entry of a "broad order" against the Respond-
ents prohibiting similar violations throughout the territorial jurisdiction of
District 2. It is clear from all the facts that the coercive practices found to
he unlawful in all of these cases, except the Fetterolf case, have been typical
methods and techniques utilized by the Respondents in their organizational
activities and that it may be reasonably anticipated that the Respondents will
engage in similar conduct in the future not only against the employees of the
6 companies involved but as to other employees engaged in mining operations
within the territorial limits of District 2. For this reason and in view of the
decisions in Mercury Mining and Construction Company and West Kentucky Coal
Company," cases, supra, the undersigned concludes that the policies of the Act
will best be effectuated by recommending the entry of an order in terms coex-
tensive with the threat of future violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
The undersigned is of the opinion that the facts in the Fetterolf case do not war-
rant the entry of an order of this character. As previously stated, the activities
on the part of Local 1113 and Lease were directed solely against Fetterolf and
antedated the general organization program by about 4 months. As there is no
evidence that the local or Lease participated in this drive, the record does
not justify the presumption or inference that they might reasonably be expected
to engage in such acts in the future against the employees of other companies in
the area. Since the undersigned has recommended the entry of a broad order
against District 2, the question of the type of order to be issued against this
Respondent in the Fetterolf matter appears to be more academic than real.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CoNCLUsIONs OF LAw
1. United Mine Workers of America, United Mine Workers of America, Dis-
trict 2, and United Mine Workers of America, Local 1113, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 0
Is Affirmed in N. L R. B. v. UMW, District 23, et al., 195 F. 2d 961 (C. A. 6).
NORRIS-THERMADOR CORPORATION 1625
2. Each of the companies, the charging parties herein, is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. United Mine . Workers.. of America, District 2, United .Mine Workers of
America, Local 1113, and their agent, John Lease ; United Mine Workers of
America, District 2, and their agents Michael Degretto, John Kosick, and James
LeCorre, in the respective cases in which they are parties, Respondents, by re-
straining and coercing the employees of the foregoing companies in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, have engaged in and are en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) 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.
a. The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) ,(2) of the Act.
6. The Respondents James Mark and Michael Widman have not engaged in
any unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and
Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
NORRIS-THERMADOR CORPORATION and LOCAL UNION 684, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER
NORRIS-THERMADOR CORPORATION and LODGE No. 1,528, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, JOINTLY WITH LOCAL No. 386,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases
Nos. 20-RC-2114 and 20-RC-3119. April 6, 1953
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before a
hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
103 NLRB No. 145.