National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards

In the Matter of 1 NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS, AND ITS PORTLAND LOCAL, CIO and PACIFIC COAST MARINE FIREMEN, OILERS, WATERTENDERS AND. WIPERS ASSOCIATION and INTERNA- TIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, AND ITS LOCAL 12, CIO and IRWIN-LYONS LUMBER COMPANY Cases Nos. 36-CC-1, 36-CC-2, 36-CC-3, 36-CB-4, 36-CB-5, and .36-CB-6.-Decided November 17, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER On May 31, 1949 , Trial Examiner Charles W . Schneider issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents, National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, CIO, hereinafter called the Cooks, Pacific Coast Marine Firemen, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers Association, hereinafter called the Firemen, and Local 12 of International Longshoremen 's and Warehouse- men's Union, CIO, hereinafter called Local 12 of the ILWU, had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto." The Trial Examiner also found that the afore- mentioned Respondents as well as Respondents International Long- shoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union, CIO, hereinafter referred to as ILWU (International), and the Portland Local of the Cooks, had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recom- mended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to these allega- tions of the complaint. Thereafter, the Company and the Respond- ents filed exceptions and supporting briefs; none were filed by the General Counsel. Oral argument was heard by the Board in Washington on Septem- ber 22, 1949. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- 1 The caption has been amended to conform with the pleadings in the case. 87 NLRB No. 9. ,54 NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE, COOKS AND STEWARDS 55 diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications and additions noted below. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that in the course of the picketing at Coos Bay and North Bend, Oregon, the Respondents. Cooks, Firemen, and Local 12 of the ILWU restrained and coerced the Company's employees in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. In so doing, we rely on the various incidents of August 27 and 28, 1948, fully described in the Intermediate Report, consisting of assaults on employees, stoning and clubbing automobiles of employees, obstructing the entrance of employees into the plant, attempting to overturn automobiles of employees, and by erecting barriers at the plant entrances. We disagree, however, with the Trial Examiner that the McGinnis- [7lshoeffer incident of September 12, 1948, constituted a violation by the Respondents of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). In the Sunset Line 2 case, the Board followed the doctrine that a principal may be bound by the acts of his agent within the scope of the agent's authority even though the specific acts were not authorized or ratified. But we pointed out that the burden of proof is on the party asserting the agency relation- ship to establish not only its existence but also "the nature and extent of the agent's authority." In that case we found that the unions were responsible for acts committed or instigated by a business agent, in- cluding the act of following an employee away from the plant and threatening him in a roadside restaurant, because we found that the business agent had "general authority" to direct the strike. Here, neither Briggs nor Nutter held any office in the union; Nutter was not found by the Trial Examiner to have been an agent of the picket line although prominent there. The Trial Examiner found Briggs to be an agent on the picket line, whose acts there were imputable to the unions, only because Local 12's business agent was present at the plant gate and neither he nor any other officer disavowed Briggs' assumption of the role of self-appointed spokesman. The Trial Examiner never- theless concluded that the unions were responsible for the McGinnis- Ulshoeffer beating because of the absence of a clear disavowal by the unions and because it was a "residual effect" of conduct the unions had earlier encouraged and approved. It does not appear, however, how the unions could have made a "disavowal" of the September 12 beat- ings, as there is no showing that any responsible official of any of the unions had knowledge of the incident. The "residual effect" argu- ment appears tenuous, as the Trial Examiner finds that after the arri- 2 Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487. .56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD val of the State Police at the scene of the picketing 2 weeks earlier, the unions had abandoned any policy of force. For these reasons, we conclude that the General Counsel has failed to satisfy the burden of proof of showing that Briggs and Nutter were agents of the Respond- ents with authority extending to encompass the McGinnis-Ulshoeffer incident. 2. Like the Trial Examiner, we are of the opinion that the pre- ponderance of the evidence does not warrant a finding that the ILWU (International) sponsored or participated in the activities alleged in the complaint as constituting unfair labor practices. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint as to the ILIVVU (International). 3. The Trial Examiner found that there was no substantial evidence showing the existence of a local of the Cooks at Portland. No excep- tions to this finding were filed. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint as to the alleged Portland local of the Cooks. 4. The Trial Examiner found that Coos River Boom Company, an Oregon corporation, is engaged as a public utility, under a franchise from the Public Utility Commission of the State of Oregon, in the transportation of logs; that Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company is a sepa- rate corporate entity engaged in logging and sawmill operations ; that the stock ownership and managerial control in the Coos River Boom Company and in the Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company are. vested, sub- stantially, in the same individuals; and that both Companies are, in effect, engaged in "one straight line operation," i. e., the Lumber Com- pany cuts the logs, the Boom Company transports the logs down the river, and the Lumber Company saws the logs into lumber at the mill. On the basis of these facts, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Boom Company is not a neutral or wholly unconcerned em- ployer,3 within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. We therefore conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respond- ent Unions have not violated Sections 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 5. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents Cooks, Firemen, and Local 12 of the ILWVU, by their coercive conduct at Coos Bay, Oregon, attempted to cause the Company to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3), thereby violating Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's finding that none of the Respondents engaged in violations of Section 8 (b) (2) by their conduct at San Francisco. Accordingly, we adopt the Trial Examiner's finding in that respect. Because it is not raised by the exceptions filed in this case, we find it unnecessary to pass on the 8 See statement by Senator Taft, set forth in the Intermediate Report, 93 Daily Cong. Rec. 4323 , April 29, 1947. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 57 question whether a demand that the Company discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3), either standing alone, or accompanied by peaceful picketing, constitutes a violation of Sec- tion 8 (b) (2) or Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.4 ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby 'orders that Local 12 of International Long- shoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, CIO ; National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, CIO; and Pacific Coast Marine Fire- men, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers Association, respectively, and their respective officers and agents, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Restraining and coercing employees of Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company, North Bend and Coos Bay, Oregon, in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection and to refrain from any or all such activities, as guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act; (b) Causing or attempting to cause Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company to discriminate in any manner against its employees, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of. the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in their business offices at San Francisco, California, and Coos Bay and North Bend, Oregon, where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the no- tice attached hereto as Appendix A.5 Copies of the notice, to be fur- nished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), shall, after being duly signed by official representatives of the Respondents, be posted and maintained for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by 4 The Respondents except to the Trial Examiner's finding that employee organization in deep water and tanker ships sailing out of Pacific Coast ports has traditionally been on a basis of having the unlicensed personnel in one bargaining unit , usually represented by the Sailors Union of the Pacific. In deciding this case, we find it unnecessary to consider the Trial Examiner 's finding in this connection . We therefore also reject the Respondents' further contention that the failure of the Trial Examiner to rule on their motion to incorporate in the instant case the record in the Section 10 ( k) proceeding led to an alleged error in making the above finding. 6 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APEEALS ENFORCING." 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (b) Forthwith return to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region copies of the aforesaid notice, furnished by the Regional Di- rector, after signing such notice as provided in paragraph 2 (a) above. The Company willing, these notices shall'be posted on Company bul- letin boards where notices to employees are customarily posted, and maintained thereon for a period of sixty (60) days thereafter; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps each has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed, insofar as it alleges that the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act and that International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (the International) and the Portland local of the Cooks engaged in any violations of the Act. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 12, CIO ; NATIONAL UNION OF MA- RINE COOKS AND STEWARDS, CIO ; AND PACIFIC COAST MARINE FIRE- MEN, OILERS, WATERTENDERS AND WIPERS ASSOCIATION ; AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF IRWIN-LYONS LUMBER COMPANY 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, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of IRWIN-LYONS LUMBER COMPANY, North Bend and Coos Bay, Oregon,. in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all of such activi- ties, as guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause IRWIN-LYONS LUMBER COMPANY to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 5.9 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 12, CIO, By ------------------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) Dated -------------=---------- NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS, CIO, By ------------------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) Dated ------------------------ PACIFIC COAST MARINE FIREMEN, OILERS, WATERTENDERS AND WIPERS ASSOCIATION, By ------------------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) 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. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement of the Case------------'--------------------------------- 60 .Findings of Fact--------------------------------------------------- 61 1. The business of the Company--------------------------------- 61 II. The organizations involved----------------------------------- 62 III. The unfair labor practices------------------------------------ 62 A. Summary of events----------------------------------- 62 B. The inception of the dispute--------------------------- 64 1. The hiring of the crew of the Rolando ------------ 64 2: August 24; Events at San Francisco------------- 65 a. The Longshoremen's dispute arises - - - - - - - - 65 b. The demands of the Cooks and the Firemen; picketing at San Francisco ------------- 65 C. Events at Coos Bay---------------------------------- 66 1. August 27 ------------------------------------ 66 2. August 28; the restraint and the barricading------ 68 3. The situation after the arrival of the State Police---- 71 4. September 10; the conciliation effort------------- 72 5. September 12--------------------------------- 73 a. The Rolando returns from the South------- 73 b. McGinnis and Ulshoeffer are beaten------- 73 6. The clerical force------------------------------ 74 7. September 23--------------------------------- 74 a. The incident at the Main gate------------ 74 b. The beating of the watchmen on the Rolando- 75 8. October 2; the tack incident--------------------- 75 .60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Findings of Fact-Continued III. The unfair labor practices-Continued D. Conclusions as to 8 (b) (1) (A) ------------------------ Summary of conclusions as to 8 (b) (1) (A)-_-------- E. The Boom Company ; 8 (b) (4) (A) --------------------- F. The 8 (b) (2) ---------------------------------------- 1. At San Francisco ------------------------------ 2. At Coos Bay---------------------------------- G. General conclusions ---------------------------------- IV. The effect of the unfair labor practices upon commerce ---------- V. The remedy ------------------------------------------------ Conclusions of Law ------------------------------------------------ Recommendations ------------------------------------------------- Appendix A------------------------------------------------------- INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER Page 76 80 81 84 84 85 86 86 87 87 87 88 Mr. Patrick H. Walker, for the General Counsel. Melvin, Faulkner, Sheehan & Wiseman, 4y Mr. Czar S. Winters, of San Fran- cisco, Calif., for the Company. Gladstein, Andersen, Resner & Sawyer, by Messrs. Herbert Resner and Allen Brotsky, of San Francisco, Calif., for the Respondents. Roos and Jennings, by Mr. Leslie L. Roos, of San Francisco, Calif., for the S. U. P. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company, Coos Bay, Oregon, herein called the Company, the General Counsel of the Board caused his complaint, dated November 3, 1948, to be issued against the following parties : National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, CIO, and its Portland local, herein called the Cooks ; Pacific Coast Marine Firemen, Oilers, Watertend- ers and Wipers Association, herein called the Firemen ; and International Long- shoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, CIO, and its Local 12, herein called the Longshoremen. Collectively, the Cooks, Firemen, and Longshoremen are herein called the Respondents. The complaint alleged that the. Respondents had en- gaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8 (b) (1) (A), 8 (b) (4) (A), and 8 (b) (2), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act (61 Stat. 136). More specifically, the complaint as thereafter amended alleged in substance with respect to the charged 8 (b) (1) (A) violations, that the Respondents had, at Coos Bay, Oregon, (1) threatened and assaulted employees of the Company; (2) picketed the Company's premises by large numbers of persons ; (3) obstructed ingress to and egress from the Company's premises of material and personnel necessary to the operation of the Company and the transportation of its finished products; and (4) damaged property of employees. With regard to the charged 8 (b) (4) (A) violation the complaint as amended alleged in substance that the Respondents induced and encouraged the employees of the Coos River Boom Company, herein called the Boom Company, to strike NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE, COOKS AND STEWARDS 61 or to refuse to handle the goods of the Lumber Company in order to compel the Boom Company to cease doing business with the Lumber Company. With regard to the charged 8 (b) (2) violation the complaint alleged, in sub- stance, that the Respondents had sought to compel the Company to discharge the unlicensed personnel of the Company's motor vessel Rolando, because of the membership of such personnel in Sailors Union of the Pacific, herein called the S.U.P. On November 24, 1948, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the Com- plaint, and an Answer thereto. Upon due notice hearings were held at San Francisco, California, and Coos Bay, Oregon, on various dates from November 30, 1948, to January 12, 1949, before this Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Company, the Respondents, and the S. U. P. appeared, were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to participate in the hearing, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, to argue the issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs and/or pro- posed findings. A brief has been filed by the Company and considered. The Respondents' Motion to Dismiss was denied at the opening of the hearing. It alleged, in substance, as I interpret it, (1) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a violation of the statute, (2) that the Act per se violates the First, Fifth, and Thirteenth amendments of the United States Con- stitution by interfering with the Respondents' freedom of association, of speech and assembly, and imposes involuntary servitude; and (3) that "as construed and applied" Sections 8 (b) (1) (A), 8 (b) (2),.and 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act are unconstitutional for the reasons asserted in ground (2).' The Respondents' Answer denied the allegations of unfair labor practices. In addition, it set up certain affirmative defenses, the principal one being that the Cbmpany and the S. U. P. had engaged in unfair labor practices directed against the Respondents. This averment was stricken on motion of the General Counsel. See Sunset Line and Twine Co., 79 NLRB 1487, footnote 6, and Cory Corporation (Case No. 13-CB-5, Intermediate Report No. 1726, October 13, 1948, footnote 6). At the conclusion of the hearing an allegation in the original complaint to the effect that the Respondents had damaged property of the Company was dismissed upon motion of the General Counsel. Other motions, on which ruling was reserved at the hearing are hereby denied. Various other pro- cedural rulings with respect to the pleadings made from time to time during the course of the hearing appear to require no discussion. Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company is an Oregon corporation having its principal place of business at Coos Bay and North Bend, Oregon.` It is engaged in con- ducting a logging operation on the Coos Bay River and operating a sawmill at North Bend, Oregon. In its logging operation it fells and bucks standing timber into logs, which are thereafter transported on the navigable waters of Coos River and Coos Bay to its sawmill. 1 In the absence of controlling court decision to the contrary, the constitutionality of the statute is assumed. Rite-Form Corset Company, Inc., 75 NLRB 174. 2 Although separate municipalities, Coos Bay and North Bend are geographically con- tiguous and compose , in effect, a single community. ,62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Company is also engaged in the operation of a motor vessel enrolled and licensed to navigate in the intercoastal waters of the United States. This vessel, the Rolando, is utilized for the transportation of lumber and lumber products produced in the Company's North Bend sawmill to points located outside the State of Oregon. It is powered by twin Diesel motors of an aggregate horse- power of 2,880, and manned by a crew consisting of 6 licensed officers and 10 unlicensed personnel. For the period from January 1, 1948, to July 1, 1948, the Company purchased and caused to be delivered to it at North Bend, Oregon, materials, supplies, tools, and equipment of the approximate value of $300,000, substantially all of which originated and were manufactured outside the State of Oregon. During the same period, the Company produced at its sawmill approximately 63,000,000 board feet of lumber and lumber products, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped by ocean-going vessels to the Territory of Hawaii and to foreign countries ; approximately 45 percent was shipped by intercoastal ocean-going vessels, or by common carrier railroads engaged in interstate commerce, to points located in the State of California. The Company concedes, the Respondents and the S. U. P. do not appear to contest, and it is found, that the Company is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Each of the following organizations is a labor organization within the meaning ,of Section 2 (5) of the Act: Sailors Union of the Pacific, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; International Longshoremen's and Warehouse- men's Union and its North Bend Local 12, and National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, both affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations ; and Pacific Coast Marine Firemen, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers Association. Local 12 of the Longshoremen is situated at North Bend and Coos Bay, Oregon. Although it was stipulated at the hearing that "each of said unions mentioned above maintains officers, agents, members, representatives, or locals at San Francisco, California, North Bend, and Coos Bay, Oregon, and Portland, Oregon," there is no definitive evidence in the record as to an existence of locals of the S. U. P., the Marine Cooks, or the Firemen, in any of these cities. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Summary of events The occurrences which gave rise to the Complaint principally cover a period of 1 month, from late August to late September 1948. They began and ended in the Coos Bay area 3 except for 1 day of events at San Francisco. A summary of the occurrences will be helpful in understanding the issues. Unless otherwise indicated, all factual findings are based upon substantially uncontradicted tes- timony which I find credible or upon conceded facts. The case arises out of a labor dispute between the Company and the Respond- ents over the operation of a ship, the Rolando, which the Company purchased for the purpose of hauling lumber from its Oregon plant to Pacific Coast ports. After fitting out the ship, the Company hired a crew, and upon a showing that the members of the crew had designated the S. U. P. as their collective bargain- ing representative, the Company on August 23, 1948, signed a contract with the 3 Because of their geographical proximity, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether occur- rences took place within the town of North Bend, or instead occurred in Coos Bay. The names are consequently sometimes used interchangeably to identify the area and not the precise municipality. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 63 S. U. P. recognizing it as the exclusive representative of all the Rolando's un- licensed crew members in the deck department, the stewards department, and the engine room. On August 24, the Rolando arrived at San Francisco, California, on her maiden voyage carrying lumber from Coos Bay. As the Rolando pre- pared to discharge its cargo a dispute arose between the Longshoremen and the Company as to whether a certain portion of the unloading operation should be performed by longshoremen or by the Rolando's deck crew. The dispute not being resolved, the longshore crew left the ship, its representative stating that he would establish a picket line. Within the next hour, representatives of the Marine Cooks, who represent unlicensed crews in the stewards department of ships, and of the Firemen, who, represent unlicensed engine room crews, arrived at the dock, although separately, and demanded that the Company hire crews from their respective organizations.- When the Company refused, citing as reason its contract with the S. U. P., the! representatives withdrew with the statement that they would picket the ship. Later in the day each of the Respondents established a picket line at the dock. The Rolando was apparently nevertheless able to discharge her cargo and sailed back to Coos Bay, arriving there in the early morning of August 27. The Re- spondents immediately posted a joint picket line in front of the dock at Coos Bay. A similar picket line was also established at the gates to the Company's mill- Massed groups of pickets substantially impeded, and for a time completely pre- vented the entrance of mill employees and other persons into the plant, under circumstances more fully detailed hereinafter. There was some physical injury and minor damage to automobiles. In the late afternoon of August 28, a detail of Oregon State Policemen was ordered to the plant by the Governor ; the Sheriff read to the assembled persons an Oregon statute forbidding unlawful assembly, and ordered them to disperse. They did so. The Respondents were permitted, however, to continue picketing the entrances in small number. The State Police remained in the area and patrolled the plant for a period of about a month, leaving when the Sheriff assured them that he had the situation under control. During this period of time there were a number of individual acts of violence or other disorders which the General Counsel attributes to the Respondents. These acts, along with the occurrences at the plant entrances on August 27 and 28, all of which are more fully described hereinafter, are alleged to have constituted violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) by the Respondents. In addition to the above action, other conduct of the Respondents is also alleged as unfair labor practices. Thus the demand for staffing the Rolando with Marine Cooks and Firemen-crews is charged as 8 (b) (2). The Respondents like- wise picketed roads leading to logging operations of the Company and the woods employees ceased working. In addition the Boom Company, which is substan- tially owned, controlled, and operated by the individuals who own the Lumber Company, was picketed and its employees, members of the International Wood- workers of America, CIO, assertedly pursuant to the Respondents' exhortation, ceased to move the Company's logs down river. This action directed at the Boom Company is alleged to have constituted a violation of Section S (b) (4) (A)- The Respondents, while denying the commission of unfair labor practices, do, not, in the main, appear to contest the facts developed by the General Counsel, the testimony of whose witnesses is substantially uncontroverted. The ques- tions presented are substantially: (1) whether the facts established conduct in violation of the statute; and (2) whether in any event responsibility for violent acts can be attributed to the Respondents. 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The inception of the dispute 1. Hiring of the crew of the Rolando As has been related, the Company acquired the Rolando in April 1948. From May to August the ship underwent conversion and refitting. When completed she was equipped to carry lumber or dry cargo on the deck. All the space below deck contained oil tanks. The Company's plan was to transport lumber from its mill at Coos Bay to California ports, and to haul back fuel oil, partly for the Company's use and partly for resale in the Coos Bay market. To judge from the evidence adduced in this hearing, employee organization in deep water and tanker ships sailing out of Pacific coast ports has apparently traditionally been on a basis of having the unlicensed personnel of the deck crew (sailors), the stewards, and the engine room crew in one bargaining unit, usually represented by the S. U. P., whereas in the coastwise dry cargo trade, the organization appears to have been on the basis of separate units in the three departments, with the Marine Cooks representing the unlicensed personnel in the stewards department and the Firemen similar personnel in the engine room. At least up to the time of amendment of the National Labor Relations Act, ships were staffed from the appropriate union hiring hall. The Rolando being neither a deep water vessel nor a completely dry cargo or tanker ship, it is not clear how it should have been classified. In early August as the conversion of the Rolando was approaching completion, representatives of the S. U. P., of the Marine Cooks, and of the Firemen, called on James Lyons, the Company's president, presumably separately, and asked for the employment of crews from their organizations. These representatives were Eddie Lane, business agent of the Cooks, W. W. Jordan, business agent of the Firemen, both of Portland, Oregon, and Robert Dombroff, an organizer for the S. U. P. Lane and Jordan argued with Lyons that the Rolando was a coastal dry cargo ship and that it was traditional maritime custom on such ships to hire unlicensed stewards' department and engine room personnel from their organizations. Lyons told all the representatives that he was advised that the hiring of crews directly from labor organizations might be a violation of the Act, and that he was going to advertise for a crew in the local newspapers. He further invited them to send qualified applicants to the captain of the Rolando. The interviews apparently concluded on that note. The advertisement appeared in the local newspaper on August 10, 11, and 12, 1948. The captain of the ship hired all applicants who held the appropriate certificates. The Cooks and Fire- men, however, (lid not refer any men. Shortly after the hiring of the crew, Jack Barton, a local representative of the S. U. P., informed President Lyons that all 10 unlicensed members of the Rolando's crew had signed cards, which Barton had forwarded to San Francisco, desig- nating the S. U. P. as their collective bargaining representative. Barton further requested a contract. Negotiations were then arranged between Lyons. and offi- cials of the S. U. P. at the latter's headquarters in San Francisco. At about the same time the Rolando left Coos Bay on her maiden voyage, arriving at San Francisco the night of August 23. On the same day Lyons met with S. U. P. officials, Lundeberg, Johnson, and Dombroff. The pledge cards were checked against the crew list and a contract negotiated and signed in which the S. U. P. was recognized as the representative of all unlicensed personnel in the deck, steward, and engine departments of the Rolando' A The findings in the above section are based on the testimony of President Lyons, and S. U. P. Representative Dombroff. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 2. August 24; events at San Francisco a. The Longshoremen's dispute arises 6.5 At San Francisco the Longshoremen became involved in the dispute. This involvement also arose out of the character of the ship. All cargo handling on the dockside of a ship, when loading or discharging, is customarily performed by longshoremen. On the West Coast, however,. cargo handling on the ship itself, is sometimes divided between longshoremen and sailors. This division, apparently the result of maritime cu.,tom, is based on the number of gear on a ship. Steam schooners generally have one or more hatches and usually carry a crane, called gear, at each hatch. On a one-geared vessel this shipside gear is attended by the ship's sailors ; on a two-geared vessel a gang of longshoremen is assigned to the second gear. On barges, however, which evidently carry no gear, all loading and discharging is done by longshoremen. The Rolando, being all tanker space below deck and carrying its lumber on the deck, had no cargo hatches and carried no gear. Its cargo is discharged by the use of shore cranes. The Rolando began to discharge her lumber on the morning of August 24. Upon the assumption that the character of the ship did not require longshoremen to work on the deck, the Company had ordered, two longshoremen for handling the cargo on the dockside. Shortly after the operation began, Clare Hoffman, a business agent of Local 10, the San Francisco local of the Longshoremen arrived at the dock, and after looking over the work, told President Lyons that the Rolando was a seagoing barge, and that the unloading job would consequently require a crew of nine longshoremen, six on the ship, one directing the operation of the crane, and two attending the slings on the dock. Lyons responded that the boat had been classified as a motor vessel, that the work on the ship belonged to the sailors, and that he intended to operate on that basis. Hoffman then signalled the front men to leave the job, told Lyons that if he attempted to continue discharging a picket line would be established, and walked off; the two front men accompanying him. b. The demands of the Cooks and Firemen; picketing at San Francisco About a half hour later, J. V. Malone,. president of the Firemen, appeared at the dock and told President Lyons that he wanted to discuss a contract covering the engine room personnel. Lyons responded that he had a contract with the S. U. P.; Malone rejoined that the Firemen .had jurisdiction and that unless its members were hired the ship would be picketed. After some further inconclusive conversation Malone left. A short time later Tangent, Lane, and Harris, who are, respectively, repre- sentatives of the Cooks in San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, also arrived and made demands on Lyons respecting the personnel of the steward's depart- ment. A conversation ensued in similar tenor and with similar conclusion as that with Malone. Shortly after 11 a. m. the Longshoremen, the Firemen, and the Cooks each established a picket line. At one time, during the noon hour, there were as many as 80 to 100 men patrolling the area. Trucks were stopped as they came up to the dock and the drivers persuaded not to cross the picket line. Other dock workers were urged by the pickets not to work, some successfully, some unsuc- cessfully. The testimony of Lyons indicates however, that the picketing was, on the whole, peaceful. The Rolando managed to discharge her cargo that after- 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD noon, and on the following morning moved out of the port for the return trip to Coos Bay. The picket lines about the dock were then withdrawn . Unloading operations were halted for only about 15 minutes by the incident , and proceeded thereafter without difficulty 6 The above occurrences in San Francisco are not alleged in the complaint to have constituted violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) or 8 (b ) (4) (A), but only of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. C. Events at the plant at Coos Bay 1. August 27 The Company's mill is situated on a plot of ground half a mile long lying along the west shore of Coos Bay. At the north end of the property are docking facil- ities for ocean-going ships. The entire area is fenced. Access to the dock area is through a gate in the fence, generally referred to as the North gate. The Company's offices and plant are near the middle of the property and are most conveniently reached through another gate known as the Main gate. Another gate is at the south end of the premises. Running along the west property line, but outside the fence, are tracks of the Southern Pacific Railway, and about 30 feet west of the tracks is a State highway. Beyond the highway is an embankment. Vehicular access to the Main gate is by way of the highway. At the point opposite the entrance one makes a sharp turn to the east, goes down a slight incline, across the railroad tracks, and through the plant gate. The distance between the east edge of the highway and the gate appears to be about 60 feet. The significant events which occurred at the plant took place principally at the Main and North gates. Early in the morning of August 27 the Rolando returned from her southern voyage and moved into a slip in the dock area at the North gate, beside another ship, the Santa Leonore, which was being loaded with lumber for South America. A joint picket line sponsored by the Firemen, the Cooks, and Local 12, the Coos Bay Local of the Longshoremen, was set up around the plant. A Joint "Strike" Committee was also established. This Committee is sparsely, and apparently not completely, identified in the record. So far as disclosed it was composed of W. W. Jordan, Firemen, and a Mr. McLaughlin, Local 12, on the General Committee, and the following : Labor Relations : Mr. Christiansen, Local 12; Publicity : Earnest Baker, presumably Local 12, and Wally Hull, business agent of Local 12; Food : Al Carlson, presumably Local 12. Local 12's hall became the "strike" headquarters. The picketing at Coos•Bay began at about 8 a. in. on August 27, when a group of about 30 men strode through the North gate and headed in the direction of the Rolando. In the lead were 2 men, one identified as Tex Briggs, a Local 12 longshoreman. Stopped-by Joseph McGinnis, a company foreman, they identi- fied themselves as pickets. McGinnis told them that they would have to get off company property. Briggs responded that if that was the Company's atti- tude they would "tie up the whole outfit," and the group left the premises. Then they took positions before the North gate. Some carried placards bearing the following legend : M. V. Rolando unfair to ILWU, MFOW and MCS 8 The factual findings in this subsection are likewise based on the testimony of Lyons and Dombroff. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 67 Some wore buttons or arm bands bearing the word "picket," and lettering indi- cating affiliation with the Respondents. The group remained throughout the day. Several members of the crew of the Rolando, who were within earshot, were called "finks" and "scabs," but otherwise, so far as the record reveals, the pickets conducted themselves peacefully throughout the morning. A longshore gang was loading the Santa Leonore with Company lumber. At about 11 o'clock the Company began to load the Rolando. When the first shipload of lumber went on the Rolando, the longshore gang on the Santa Leonore walked off that ship, bringing its loading operations to a halt. Shortly after noon a group of 40 to 50 men, carrying insignia and placards similar to those at the North gate, took positions before the Main gate. At around the same time another like group began to picket the South gate. At that time the Company's mill was operating on three shifts: 7 a. in. to 3:30 p. m. ; 4 p. m. to 1:30 a. m.; and 1:30 to 7 a. m. The mill employees are represented by the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, A. F. of L. There was no immediate difficulty. As the hour for the afternoon change of shift approached, however, the group before the Main gate increased in size, until by 3: 30 it numbered around 100. As the second shift began to arrive at the plant, the group around the Main gate congregated about the entrance and ex- horted the mill employees not to go through the picket line. Among the group were Tex Briggs, a longshoreman, and W. W. Jordan, Firemen's business agent. About half the shift nevertheless went in the gate. As the remainder, some 60, stood about outside the gate in apparent indecision, they were joined by a number of other persons : Norman Morgan, a representative of the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Foremen McGinnis and Richardson, and S. U. P. rep- resentatives Dombroff and Johansen. An argument, described by Dombroff as a "public forum" took place. Briggs and Jordan on one side and Dumbroff and Johansen on the other debated the merits of the Respondents' claims and actions. The employees who had gone through the entrance crowded up to the gate to hear. Those outside mingled with the pickets,' some of whom had been attracted from the other gates. After a vigorous discussion on both sides, the mill employees outside the gate took a vote on whether to go through the picket line or not. The result favored going to work. They then passed through the gate and into the plant without incident. Employees of suppliers making deliveries by truck of materials and supplies to the Company were likewise dissuaded from crossing the picket line. Drivers of Company trucks likewise declined, after exhortation by the pickets, to make outside deliveries. Up to the time the second shift voted to go through the picket line, there was no disturbance, and except for pleas to employees not to be "scabs" or "finks" or statements that they would "be sorry" for crossing the picket line, the pickets engaged in none but apparently peaceful and legitimate conduct.' Beginning on the night of August 27, however, the atmosphere at the gates began to change. As Harry Greenwald, carpenter on the Santa Leonore, passed out through the North gate that evening to go into the town of North Bend, one of the pickets warned him, "This is the last time you are going through." 6 Throughout this section of the Report, unless otherwise indicated, the term "picket" is used, as the witnesses used it, to refer to persons-whether regularly detailed pickets, union members, or unidentified persons who congregated at the plant gates and verbally or otherwise sought to discourage persons from entering. 7 Thus President Lyons testified that there was no violence on the 27th and he knew of no threats on that day; and Timekeeper Fenneman testified that he did not see anyone prevented from entering the plant area. 877359-50-vol. 87-6 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In town Greenwald met Jordan, the Firemen's business agent, on the street, who told him there would be "plenty more" members of the Firemen's Union coming to town. Firemen and Cooks in numbers estimated from 50 to sev- eral hundred arrived in town thereafter and were billeted for a time in the Community Hall in North Bend, as well as in the Longshoremen's hiring hall. As Greenwald returned to the Santa Leonore about 11 p. in. that night the men around the North gate were busy building shacks and "dugouts." A barricade had been established at the gate. Greenwald leaped the barricade and went into the plant area. The pickets chased hini momentarily and then desisted. Various members of the Rolando's crew were also in town that evening. S. U. P. Organizer Dombroff rounded up some of them about 10: 30 p. no. and brought them to the Main gate. As he drove through some pickets shouted that they would upset the car, but apparently did not attempt to do so. About Midnight Dombroff drove out again, apparently without trouble! 2. August 28; the restraint and the barricading At about 3 or 4 a. no. on August 28, S. If. P. Organizer Dombroff returned to the plant to pick up Joe Hansen, a member of the crew of the Rolando. As he drove through the Main gate, pickets "massed" 9 in front of the car, and seized it as if to turn it over. Dombroff put the engine in low gear and drove through. As he went through the gate rocks and pieces of 2" x 4" lumber were thrown after the car. As Dombroff and Hansen drove out the gate again a few minutes later, rocks were thrown at them. About 6: 30 a. in. Dombroff returned to the plant. Again the pickets. "massed" before the gate and seized hold of the car, but Dombroff does not appear to have been impeded. A number of cars, identity unestablished, were following Dombroff. The one immediately behind got into the plant; the rest, according to Dombroff were "turned back." The identity of the pickets or of the individuals who threw the rocks and the lumber is not established. Shortly before 7 a. in. the mill employees on the first shift began to come to work. The maintenance employees got into the plant without any evident difficulty. The other employees, however, were stopped at the gate. Thus, about 6: 45 a. m., Foreman Parrick came to work driving a pick-up truck. At that time about 50 men were milling about the Main gate. As Parrick drove up a number of the men stepped in front of his truck. Rather than run them down, Parrick stopped. Members of the group, whom Parrick was unable to identify, told him that his car would be tipped if he tried to go through. Parrick never- theless attempted it. Then men picked up the car as if to tip it over. Parrick then agreed to back out. He did so, parked his car in the road, and stood outside the gate. A few minutes later Meredith Lee Gard, a welder working on the Rolando, was stopped at the North gate by about 100 persons who blocked his entrance. Lee Gard ultimately got into the plant by rowboat from the bay side. At about 7: 15 a. in. a barricade, consisting of a 24 foot 3" x 12" plank supported on 2 carrier blocks about 8 inches high, was set tip before the 30 foot entrance at the Main gate. 8 Dombroff testified that "outside of a couple of dents in the car" he had no difficulty getting through . Since his testimony does not indicate how the dents were acquired, it is not-found that any resistance was offered to Dombroff 's entry on this occasion. 9 The term is from Dombroff 's testimony. NATIONAL UNION OF. MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 69 Some time later Bookkeeper Morrisey, accompanied by Wilbur Craig, the shipping clerk, drove up to the Main gate. At this time the crowd before the entrance numbered 60 to 70. Morrisey was stopped and told by a man identified as Brown that he could not go in. When Morrisey insisted that he could, about 8 men lifted the car'momentarily on one side. Morrisey tried several times to negotiate the entrance but each time the men repeated the maneuver of lifting the car. Morrisey finally desisted, turned the car around, parked it, and came back and stood before the gate. Shortly before 8 o'clock the Mill Superintendent called President Lyons at his home and told him that that the entrance was barricaded and-that no one was able to get into the plant. Lyons told him to call the police, and drove to the plant. According to his testimony there were then about 1;0 persons grouped around the Main gate. Among the crowd were Tex Briggs, business agent Hoffman of Longshoremen's San Francisco Local 10, and Firemen's Representa- tive Jordan. About 30 of the day shift employees, among them about a dozen of the clerical force, were congregated on the embankment opposite the highway. Cars were parked along the roadway, and the barricade was in place. Some of the pickets carried clubs whittled from 2 x 3 or 2 x 4 lumber into shapes resem- bling a baseball bat, although shorter. Some had rocks taken from a nearby con- struction pile. A picket banner or placard was in place near the gate. Lyons got out of the car, and with. the help of Foreman Parrick, proceeded to move the barricade. They were shoved aside by a group of men, among them Hoffman, who told Lyons that no one was going into the plant. Other of the men then shouldered Lyons and Parrick away from the barricade, and replaced the plank. About 15 of them then stood on it. Lyons, however, forced his way through the crowd into the plant and called the police. No blows were struck. About 8: 30 or 9 a. In. Chief of Police Sorenson of North Bend arrived at the scene, and found 50 to 60 people gathered about the barricade. He asked the men to remove it, and they complied. Sorenson then left. As he did so several cars went into the plant. Shortly after the Chief of Police had left, Timekeeper Fenneman, accom- panied by the switchboard operator, drove up to the Main gate. Estimates as to the number of persons standing in front of the gate at that time varied from 40 to 80. Three were. dragging a plank across the road. As Fenneman continued to approach slowly, with the car in second gear, the men carrying the plank dropped it and the others got out of the way. Fenneman drove over the plank and into the gate. As he did so someone threw a club at the car, denting the top. Fenneman, incensed, got out, walked back to the gate and demanded to know who had done it. One of the pickets hollered "hit the son-of-a-bitch." Other pickets pushed him away, however, and someone else restrained Fenneman. Sometime between 8 and 9 a. in. (whether before or after the arrival of Police Chief Sorenson, is not clear) a "forum" or debate similar to that on the 27th was held outside the gate between representatives of the various unions: S. U. P. representatives Dombroff and Johansen, Mel Shaver of the Inland Boatmen's Union," W. W. Jordan of the Firemen, and Tex Briggs of the Longshoremen. Dombroff protested vigorously against the picketing, say- ing that it was a "fine thing for so-called trade unions . . . to be picketing against a better agreement there than they had ever been able to negotiate, especially when they never had any . . . members on the job . . ." Jordan a" The interest of the Boatman is not clear from the record. 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD replied that it was "nothing personal" but that lie had orders to protect the jurisdiction of the Firemen's Union, and that he was "going to see that it was protected even if it meant putting Lyons out. of business." Dombroff's further testimony is as follows : So we argued the matter pro and con. I gave him a copy of the agree- ment and told him to come around there and do his picketing when lie could negotiate a better one. So he and I made a personal bet. He said that either Lyons would be out of business or our men would be off the ship and it would be manned by the M C & S and Firemen before it would go out again. So we bet a bottle of whiskey on that. Then Jordan said he had to go to a strike committee meeting. He turned around to the pickets and said if I wanted to leave or take anybody out there with me to see that I got out all right, but under no circumstances to leave me or anybody else back in the plant. This discussion took place in the presence of the pickets, and part of the crew of the Rolando and mill employees. At about 9:30 Foreman McGinnis went out the Main gate to the group of mill employees congregated on the embankment and told them to "stand fast" until he could "figure out some kind of a program." As he went through the gate some unidentified person among the pickets told McGinnis that he would not get back in. After talking to the employees McGinnis started back into the plant but was unable to effect an entrance. The pickets took positions shoulder to shoulder across the gate and, according to McGinnis, in a mass 10 feet deep. Some of them, unidentified, told McGinnis that he could not go through. One of them, named Nutter, told McGinnis that he would "find [himself] at the bottom of the Bay for protecting [his] two-bit job." McGinnis tested the line but it did not yield. With that he left, went into the town of North Bend, phoned President Lyons and told him that he was unable to get back into the plant. Lyons told him to "relax," saying that he had sent for the sheriff. McGinnis then returned to the gate. At around 10: 30 or 11: 30 a. m. Sheriff Howell and Police Chief Sorenson arrived in response to calls from Lyons. At this time there were 60 to 70 persons in the vicinity, most of them about the Main gate. McGinnis asked the Sheriff if lie was going to get the employees through the line. The Sheriff replied that he wished first to talk to the people in the office and would let McGinnis know. The Sheriff and the Police Chief then went into the plant office. After a while they emerged, accompanied by Lyons. While the Sheriff and Chief of Police Sorenson stood on the office porch Lyons came out through the line, got into his car, which he had left parked outside, and drove through the gate into the plant. Apparently no resistance was offered to his entrance. McGinnis, Parrick, and a number of other mill employees attempted to follow Lyons but the line closed up in front of them and they were thrown back. Tex Briggs exhorted the men to "stand solid [and not] let anybody through." Some blows were struck. Sheriff Howell and Chief Sorenson then came out. Howell remonstrated the pickets for striking one of the employees, and cautioned them against violence. Nutter, one of the pickets, appealed to the Sheriff to let them handle the situation by themselves, saying "Wont be any violence. We will just put the man to sleep." By dint of pushing and shoving Sheriff Howell and Chief Sorenson managed to get the employee group through the line and into the plant, to the accompaniment of a clamor of protest from the pickets. Among NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 71 the men in the line was Wally Hull, variously identified as president, vice presi- dent, and business agent of Longshoremen's Local 12, but there is no evidence as to any specific participation on the part of Hull. At around 11: 30 a. in. Charles Hoffman, an official of the Oregon Coast Operators, an industrial relations association of lumber operators, attempted to drive through the Main gate. At that time about 25 men, some carrying picket placards of the Respondents, were standing around the gate. The barricade was in place, and before the barricade an automobile, parked at a 45 degree angle across the road, obstructed vehicular entrance. In response to Hoffman's re- quest that the car be moved so that he could get in, an unidentified individual who appeared to be a spokesman, stated that no one could get in without a permit, which would have to be secured at the Longshore Hall. At about 6 p. in. Norman Morgan, a representative of the Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union, A. F. L., bargaining agent for the mill employees, tried to drive through the Main gate into the plant. By this time there were 75 to 100 pickets and the gate was completely blockaded by men pressed tightly together. They told Morgan that he could not go in. When he insisted that he could someone shouted "dump him." A number of the men then grasped the, car as if to tip it. Morgan, however, put it into low gear and moved ahead. The group scattered. As he went through the gate several rocks were hurled after the car. One struck and shattered the front window on Morgan's side, cutting his face. The other rock rattled against the metal body, denting it. Morgan was unable to identify any of the group. After the McGinnis incident Sheriff Howell told Lyons that the situation was too much for him to handle and suggested that Lyons call the District Attorney. Lyons did so, and after some conversation with the Sheriff, the District Attorney indicated that he would call the Governor and ask for State Policemen to be sent into the area. That afternoon a detail of State Policemen, led by Sergeant Earl Huff, was ordered into the area. They arrived at the plant at about 6: 30 p. in., accom- panied by Sheriff Howell. There were then about 35 persons congregated about the gate. The Sheriff read to them an Oregon statute on unlawful assembly and called upon the group to disperse. He advised them they might have 3 persons at each gate. The group designated such representatives, and they then dispersed. After about an hour a number of them returned and began, with the apparent acquiesence of the police, to walk back and forth along the highway from the plant to the town of North Bend, about 4 blocks away, in groups of 3, at intervals of about 10 feet. 3. The situation after the arrival of the State Police The State Police remained in the area for a period of about a month, pa- trolling intermittently 24 hours a day. They left when the Sheriff gave Sergeant Huff assurances that he had the situation under control. The plant shut down after August 28 and did not reopen until several weeks prior to the hearing, apparently as the result of its log supply being shut off. Shortly after the picketing began at Coos Bay the Company's loggers went on strike and the employees of the Boom Company ceased to move the Company's logs down river, pursuant to exhortation by the Longshoremen. Except for a number of incidents which are discussed subsequently, however, the situation at the plant was peaceful and orderly after the State Police took over. Sergeant Huff testified that after the arrival of his -detail anyone who 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wished to enter the plant could have done so. President Lyons testified to sub- stantially the same effect. On several occasions reports were received to the effect that when the police were not present persons were prevented from enter- ing or that the number of pickets was increased. Huff thereupon increased his patrols. He and Chief Sorenson on several such 'occasions called on officials Hull and Rountree of Local 12 with relation to these occurrences. These of- ficials assured Huff and Sorenson, with seeming sincerity, that they wished to cooperate and maintain peaceful conditions." There were several occasions, however, when police intervention was necessary. Late in September several persons, apparently pickets, placed a barricade across the road. When Sergeant Huff and Chief Sorenson reported this to Rountree at the Longshore Hall, Rountree went to the plant and personally removed the barricade himself. Early in September, as President Lyons drove out of the plant gate one night, a picket stepped in front of his car. According to Lyons, the picket would not "get out the way," and Lyons therefore "knocked him out of the way with the car." As lie drove on four men jumped in an automobile and pursued him, but were intercepted by the State Police and arrested on various. charges of vagrancy, disorderly conduct, and failure,to display license plates conspicuously.12 On Sunday, August 29, Foreman McGinnis drove through the Main gate with some stores for the Rolando. As he got out of the car inside the plant area he noticed that the cap on his gasoline tank was missing. Further investigation disclosed that a paper cup of a type similar to that used by the pickets for coffee, and containing sugar, had been inserted in the opening of the tank. Apparently none of the sugar, however, had actually got into the tank. 4. September 10; the conciliation effort On September 10, 1948, a meeting between representatives of the Respondents and of the Company was held under the auspices of a committee composed of businessmen and the mayors of North Bend and Coos Bay in an effort 'to settle the dispute. John Ferguson, a local businessman, and E. E. Fitzwalter, a former mayor of Coos Bay, arranged the meeting. Ferguson first approached 'J. W. Hull of Local 12 and Earnest Baker, chairman of publicity on the Strike Com- mittee, and also a local Longshoreman, According to Ferguson's testimony, Hull and Baker said that they would welcome such a meeting and were "really enthusi- astic." The Company was equally receptive. Hull and Baker asked permission to bring representatives of the Firemen and the Cooks to the meeting, which was granted. They likewise suggested that S. U. P. Representative Dombroff also be there, but the committee, being of the opinion that Dombroff's presence would not contribute to a solution, did not invite him. The meeting was extremely decorous and orderly.13 Ferguson presided as chairman. The Respondents' principal representatives were J. W. Hull and Earnest Baker of Local 12, Jordan of the Firemen, and Eddie Lane of the Cooks. 11 Chief Sorenson 's testimony was as follows : Everytime I went down and talked to them they was always willing to help, or do something. Say they shouldn't do that, or like that. But they always cooperated every time I went down there and asked them. 12 Lyons testified that this incident occurred on August 29. The police complaints, pre- sumably sworn out at the time of the arrests, give the date as September 12. 13 Ferguson testified that all "conducted themselves in a perfect manner . It was a more orderly, I'd say a more decorous meeting than an ordinary Chamber of Commerce or any other club meeting . . . the gentlemen conducted themselves perfectly." NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 73 The Company was represented by President Lyons. Discussion revealed that a basis for understanding could be reached between the Company and Local 12 with respect to their dispute. Ferguson then asked whether the port would open if the Longshoremen's dispute was settled. The Firemen and Cooks replied that it would not. Hull indicated that the Longshoremen would not settle unless agree- ment was also reached with the Firemen and Cooks. Jordan maintained that the Rolando was a dry cargo ship, not a tanker, and that it was accepted maritime practice to man the engine room and stewards' department of such ships with members of the Firemen and Cooks. When it became evident that agreement could not be reached, Ferguson asked that the strike activities be confined to peaceful methods. Jordan replied that his men were fighting for their jobs, referred to the crew of the Rolando as "snakes," and said that he would use what- ever weapons were at his disposal, "We will use all that we have, and if we haven't anything but our hands . . . don't let them get near us." The meeting concluded without agreement. 5. September 12 a. The Rolando. returns from the South On August 30, 1948, 2 days after the State Police had taken over, the Rolando sailed south to San Pedro, California. She returned to Coos Bay on the morning of September 12. Her arrival in the harbor was marked by a resurgence of ex- citement in the community. Large crowds of persons congregated outside the North gate and opposite the Main entrance. Although there is testimony char- acterizing these persons as "pickets," they were not otherwise identified. Their conduct was apparently peaceful. Sergeant Huff's testimony is that there was no violence. There is no evidence that the crowd blocked the entrances or en- gaged in any restraint. At this time West Coast marine shipping had been closed down by the coast- wide maritime strike which began on September 2, 1948. Upon its return from San Pedro the Company tied up the Rolando and dismissed the crew. b. McGinnis and Ulshoeffer are beaten About mid-afternoon on September 12, Foreman McGinnis and Frank Ulshoeffer, an able seaman on the Rolando, 'drove from the dock into the town of North Bend to pick up some newspapers at the Coos Bay Hotel. When they got to the hotel McGinnis parked the car at the curb. As he did so 2 automobiles filled with men went by, slowed down for a look into McGinnis' car and then went on. McGinnis recognized Tex Briggs as one of the passengers. McGinnis then went into the hotel, leaving Ulshoeffer sitting in the car. Shortly afterward, Ulshoeffer. looked up and saw a group of 12 to 14 men, among them Tex Briggs and Nutter," coming toward the car. At that moment McGinnis came out of the hotel carrying the newspapers. The group split and came up on both sides of the car. One group, Nutter among them, intercepted McGinnis. Nutter said, "This is it" and rushed McGinnis, who threw the bundle of newspapers in Nutter's face. Nutter knocked McGinnis down and others in the group began to kick hint in the head and about the kidneys. McGinnis attempted to roll away but was unsuccess- ful. In the meantime Briggs and the other part of the gang had come up'to Ulshoeffer who was sitting in the car. ' Briggs told Ulshoeffer to "get off that ship." 14 See subsection 2 above, as to the conversation between Nutter and Sheriff Howell at the Main gate on August 28. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As Briggs stepped back one of the others struck Ulshoeffer with his fist. Ul- shoeffer opened the car door and dove after him, landing in the street. As he grappled with someone the others began kicking him in the head and body. After a time the gang broke and ran down the street. As they left Briggs, running past McGinnis, who was prone on the sidewalk, kicked him in the head. After the assailants had left, McGinnis and Ulshoeffer picked themselves up and drove back to the plant. Both were bloodied up ; McGinnis had a black eye and a bloody nose, and abrasions and bruises on his head and along the side of his body. Ulshoeffer's head was badly cut. A doctor was called to the plant and bandaged McGinnis' head. It required 5 stitches to close Ulshoeffer's wounds and he was hospitalized 15 6. The clerical force Sometime after September 12, 1948, the clerical force ceased to work under circumstances which, either as to reason or time, are not entirely clear from the testimony. Thus, Timekeeper Fenneman testified that the office work ceased about September 15 for the reason that after noon of that day, the pickets at the Main gate were augmented and prevented further entrance into the plant. On the other hand Office Manager Snyder testified that the office force ceased working on September 24. Snyder's testimony does not indicate the reason for the cessation. Conceivably the shutting down of production operations may have curtailed the clerical work. It is difficult to reconcile Fennement's testimony with Sergeant Huff's (ad- verted to here before) to the effect that after the State Police arrived entrance was afforded all who wished it. Although the police were on duty all during this period, there is no other reference in the testimony to this occurrence. It may be that Fenneman confused incidents before August 29 with dates thereafter. I do not feel warranted, under the circumstances, in making a find- ing that the Respondents prevented the office force from entering during this period of time. 7. September 23 a. The incident at the Main gate On September 23 there was an incident involving disorder by some of the pickets at the Main gate. At about 7 p. in. that evening as a car approached the gate several pickets stepped in front of it and began a conversation with the driver. During this discussion, Louis Turnbow, a State policeman, was on duty at the gate. According to Officer Turnbow's testimony, one of the pickets "grabbed the end of a plank but . . . dropped it . . . he didn't do anything." Officer Turnbow then cautioned the pickets against stepping in front of automobiles, and against throwing anything in the road. Some time thereafter another car, that of a tourist who had mistaken the road for the main highway, approached the gate. Again a number of pickets gathered in front of it. One of them, Lessard, who was wearing a union button, threw a plank across the road in front of the car. Sweeney, a picket, told Turnbow that he was "sorry" that the incident had happened, but that the pickets were "going 1e On returning to the plant , McGinnis and Ulshoeffer found a plank, in the forms of a barricade, across the road before the North gate. McGinnis and Ulshoeffer then went to the Main gate and got some State Police patrolling there who .removed the plank . Appar- ently there were no pickets at that time at the North gate. There is no evidence as to bow the plank came to be there. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 75 to try to keep the cars from going in." There is no evidence, however, that Turnbow permitted such action or that the pickets further attempted it.16 b. The beating of the watchmen on the Rolando After the Rolando's crew was released, and the ship tied up, the Company maintained two night watchmen on the vessel: Neal Ferre and William Ed- wards. Ferre and Edwards were provided with passes by Local 12 in order to go through the picket line. On the September 23 watch, early in the morning of the 24th, four men came aboard the Rolando and beat up Ferre and Edwards. The identity of the four is largely unestablished and the motive for the attack is not altogether clear. Ferre identified two of the four as men he had seen loading ships at the Com- 'pany dock and who had been at the Longshoremen's Hall on September 22 or 23, when his pass was renewed. As to the other two, Ferre, while testifying that he knew who they were, declined to give their names. On the other hand, Edwards testified that he was unable to identify any of the men. The testimony leaves much unexplained. Ferre's refusal to identify two of the men, although knowing them, left the impression that some of the facts were being concealed. His testimony provides no explanation as to possible motive for the assault. Edwards, who testified immediately afterward, stated that he, also, was unable to suggest any explanation for it. The subsequent tes- timony of Carl Oxnevard, a dispatcher for Local 12, called as a witness by the Respondents, discloses however that someone on the Rolando had been shoot- ing a gun, for what purpose is not disclosed. When Ferre picked up his pass on September 22 or 23 at the Longshoremen's Hall, Ferre, according to Oxne- vard, admitted upon questioning that it was he who had been doing the shooting. It is difficult to draw conclusions with respect to the incident in view of the vagueness of the evidence. But it seems unlikely that the Respondents would have provided Ferre and Edwards with passes if they intended to interfere with their watching duties. The testimony suggests that some members of the Respondent unions may have committed the assault in reprisal for the shooting incident, but that is mere speculation. Ferre's demeanor while testi- fying left the distinct impression that there was much that he knew that he was not disclosing. Under these circumstances I do not feel warranted in finding the Respondents responsible for the assault on Ferre and Edwards. 8. October 2; the tack incident The State Police, assured by the local authorities that they had the situa- tion under control, left late in September. The picketing continued at all the gates, in orderly fashion, however, until about 3 weeks before the beginning of the present hearings, at which time the pickets were withdrawn from the Main and South gates. At the time of hearing there were only three pick- ets, and these at the North gate picketing the Rolando. Except for one inci- dent, now to be related, there was no disorder after the State Police left. 1° Turnbow further testified that "as near as I could find out they [the pickets] just wanted to find out who [the occupants of the car] were." The remark of Sweeney is therefore probably to be interpreted in the light of that explanation, a conclusion seemingly supported by Turnbow's apparent failure to make any rejoinder and by the absence of evidence of any further disorder. 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On October 2, 1948, there were about eight pickets at the Main gate. As Vice- President Irwin and Office Manager Snyder drove through the gate on that clay, some unidentified person threw a plank in front of the car. As Snyder drove over it something unidentified struck the top of the car. There were no persons other than pickets in the vicinity. While Irwin and Snyder were in the plant a number of other persons joined the pickets and the group before the gate increased in size to a number variously estimated at 20 to 50. When Irwin and Snyder had finished their business in the plant and were about to leave, Irwin called the District Attorney. Several min- utes later Chief of Police Sorenson arrived at the gate. He told the pickets that lie was going to bring out Irwin and Snyder and proceeded to drive in the entrance. As he started to do so, several of the pickets shouted at him to stop and pointed out that the driveway was "full of" roofing tacks; according to Sorenson "the approach was just covered with them." Sorenson angrily walked into the plant, got a broom and swept the tacks from the approach. The pickets assisted him in doing so. Sorenson then stood at the gate and Irwin and Snyder drove out unmolested. On the following morning, Snyder found a roofing tack in one of his front tires. When he removed it the tire deflated. The rear view mirror of his car was also missing. Since October 2, 1948, there have been no apparent further incidents. The plant, however, remained closed until shortly before the hearing, at which time it again began to operate. D. Conclusions as to 8 (b) (1) (9.) The complaint alleges violations of 8 (b) (1) (A) only as to the events in Coos Bay on and after August 27, 1948. There is no substantial evidence to establish that intimidation, violence, or forcible restraint occurred at Coos Bay up to the night of August 27. During that day the picketing at the various gates was, so far as the record reveals, relatively orderly and peaceful. The characterization by pickets of crew mem- bers of the Rolando as "finks" and "scabs" is a type of name-calling which the Board has found to be privileged under Section 8 (c) of the statute (Perry Nor- vell Company, 80 NLRB 225). Although the picketing was in substantial numbers, that fact alone does not, in the absence of actual restraint or threat of force, constitute a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). The influence brought to bear on mill employees not to enter the plant on the 27th was confined to ex- hortation and argument. When the mill employees, unpersuaded, voted to go to work, they were permitted to go into the plant without molestation. However, that intimidation and restraint did occur beginning on the night of August 27, 1948, seems clear from the foregoing recital of facts. Thus that night the men at the North gate established a barricade. Early on the morning of August 28 rocks and lumber were thrown at S. U. P. official Dombroff's car as he drove into the plant. Beginning with the first shift at 7 a. m. on August 28 mill employees were forcibly restrained and effectively prevented from entering the plant. A barricade was erected. Pickets massed before the gate and kept out both pedestrians and automobiles. When President Lyons and Foreman Parrick attempted to'remove the barricade they were forcibly restrained from doing so. The evidence is clear, as it has been set out fully heretofore, and needs no further recital. In sum, all during the day of August 28, until the arrival of the State Police, and except for the brief interval during which the barricade NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 77 was removed at the request of Police Chief Sorenson , rank and file employees, supervisors, mill officials , and persons having business in the plant were, with Several exceptions , forcibly prevented from entering. That the restraint was not completely successful in preventing all from entering, or that in some cases it involved supervisors or persons not company employees, is immaterial. Its natural and probable consequence was to serve notice on company employees who. were viewing the proceedings , that any attempt at entrance would be -met with forcible resistance . Without reiterating in detail all the various acts of force, fully set out heretofore, which occurred at the plant gates on August 28, 1948, it is sufficient to say that, they constituted , singly and in their totality, a concerted effort to prevent employees from entering the plant . Such activity on the part of a labor organization or its agents , the Board has determined, constitutes restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). (Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487 ). If, therefore , the conduct is attributable to the Respondents , they have violated the Act. The Respondents , however, deny authorization of, and responsibility for, any acts of restraint or force. So far as Local 12 of the Longshoremen , and the Firemen and the Cooks are concerned , I am persuaded that those organizations must accept responsibility for the acts of restraint occurring at the gates on August 27 and 28. The Board has said that a union 's liability for, the acts of persons allegedly representing it is to be determined by the general laws of agency, and that as a principal, the union may be responsible for the acts of its agents within the scope of their general authority. ( Sunset Line and Twine, supra; see Perry Norvell Co. , supria ; Smitlr Cabinet Mfg. Co., Inc., 81 NLRB 886.) In the instant case it is clear from the evidence , and in fact it is not denied, that Local 12 and the Cooks and the Firemen sponsored the picketing of the plant gates . Officials of two of these organizations , Local 12 and the Firemen, appeared in the picket line from time to time ; passes through the line had to be secured from the Longshoremen's Hall, which was the apparent headquarters for strike activity. Among the persons who were either union officials or who purported to act as spokesmen for the pickets on August 28, 1948, and who actually participated in acts of restraint or used threat of force before the )lain gate on that day , were W. W. Jordan, a member of the Joint Strike Com- mittee and who acted throughout the dispute as the representative of the Firemen, and Tex Briggs of Local 12 . There can be little question, in view of the Board decisions above cited , that these men were agents of their respective unions. They directed and participated in acts of restraint and force -in furtherance of the general objectives of the picketing . They were thus acting within the scope of their authority as agents , and their organizations are responsible for the manner in which that objective was effectuated. That Local 12 or the Firemen may not have conferred authority on the individuals to commit the specific unlawful acts ( or, indeed, as the evidence suggests as to Local 12, may even have deplored them) is not controlling. Sunset Line and Twine Co., supra; Perry Norveil Co., supra; Snaith Cabinet Mfg. Co., supra. While Briggs is not shown to have been an official of Local 12 , and though mere union membership does not create an agency relationship between a union and its members , Briggs was a leader in the picket line sponsored by the Respondents. He assumed to act as spokesman for and directed the group about the gate. Wally Hull, an official of Local 12, was present at the gate when resistance was offered to employees attempting to get into the plant. Briggs was exhorting the pickets to stand fast and not to let anyone through . While it is arguable that Hull's failure 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL _ LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to disavow actions taking place under the banner of Local 12 warranted the conclusion by the participants and the observers that Hull, and thus Local 12, officially sanctioned the restraints, the Board has held that the mere presence of an agent of a labor organization is insufficient to constitute the acts of strikers the acts of the organization. Perry Norvell Co. (Committeeman Driskill) ; cf. Sunset Line and Twine Co. (Business Agent Vail and Vice-President Lynch). Local 12 was put on notice, however, by Hull's presence, that Briggs was assum- ing to act as a leader and director of the picket line activity sponsored by Local 12. So far as appears that assumption of authority, if it was such, was not disavowed. As to Jordan, the Board has held that a member of a strike committee is an agent of the committee ; Perry Norvell Co. In any event Jordan was an agent of the Firemen within the definitions of the Board. While it is true that in a number of instances, the precise identity of some who used force at the Main gate was not established, other than by conclusory testi- mony to the effect that they were "pickets," it is evident that those participants were members of, or identified with the picketing group. It is not disputed that the Respondents maintained a sizable picket line which attempted to prevent entrance to the plant on August 28, 1948. Individuals who participated in those attempts were among the pickets. For a time this group had complete control over the situation at the gate. It is thus idle to argue that, because the par- ticipating individuals were not in every case identified by name their actions in consonance with the general scheme of blockading the gate are not attributable to the picketing group. The General Counsel having established the Respondent's control over the situation, it was up to the Respondents to disprove that specific acts at the gate in pursuance of the aim of preventing entrance were not the acts of persons in the control group. If there be doubt, the Respondents produced the quandary; it was their responsibility to dissociate themselves from its results. "It rested upon the tort feasor to disentangle the consequences for which it was chargeable from those from which it was immune." N. L. B. B. v. Stackpole, Car- bon Co., 105 F. 2d 167, 176 (C. A. 3). The next question is the responsibility of the Marine Cooks and the Longshore- men's International for the above violations of Local 12 and the Firemen. There is no substantial evidence that the Cooks was represented in the incidents of August 28 by any of its officials or representatives ; nor evidence of an adoption or ratification by the Cooks of any of the illegal acts ; nor evidence of understand- ing or knowledge on the part of the Cooks that illegal force would, or was likely to, be used. The Respondents argue that mere joinder in the establishment of a picket line does not render a union liable for the independent, unauthorized, and unknown unlawful acts of other joint participants. To hold otherwise, they assert, is to make each sponsor of a picket line a guarantor of the good conduct of every other participant. However persuasive these contentions might be if this were a question of first impression, the Board, as I interpret the decision in the Suns-et Line and Twine case, supra, has held to the contrary. The Board there stated the following : . . . the majority [of the Board] regards the International's admitted co- sponsorship of the strike and picketing as highly significant. From that admitted fact it is inferred that, for the purposes of this particular enter- prise, a relationship between the two organizations [Local and International] was necessarily created whereby each organization became responsible for the acts of the other-that is, of the other's duly assigned agents- in the furtherance of their common venture. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS '79 This holding seems applicable to the Cooks herein. See also Smith Cabinet Alfl/. Co., supra. It is therefore found that the violations of Local 12 . and the Firemen are attributable to the Cooks. With respect to the Longshoremen's International, however, the answer must be different. While it might be surmised that the activities of Local 12 at Coos Bay, and of Local 10 at San Francisco, could not have been maintained without International approval, there is no substantial evidence that the International sponsored the strikes or the picketing. Likewise, there is no substantial evidence of participation by International officials in any of the events. It will therefore be recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to the Longshoremen's International. While Business Agent Hoffman of the Sari Francisco Local 10 of the Long- shoremen participated in the August 28 restraint, Local 10 is not charged as a respondent. There is no substantial evidence as to the existence of a local of the Cooks at Portland to whom an order could be directed. It will therefore be recom- mended that the complaint be dismissed as to the Portland local of Cooks. It is found that. Longshoremen Local 12, the Firemen, and the Cooks, on August 27 and 28, 1948, restrained and- coerced the Company's employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by: (1) assaults upon employees; (2) stoning and clubbing automobiles of employees; (3) obstructing the entrance of employees into the plant; (4) attempting to overturn automobiles of employees; and (5) by erecting barriers at the plant entrances. After August 28 there was no wholesale and general restraint. According to the State police officers the situation was largely orderly. The various individual incidents which occurred thereafter, however, require disposition. 1. In September a barricade was placed across the road, but, as has been seen, was removed by Rountree, a Local 12 official, when the police reported the incident to him. This action-would seem to constitute an effective repudiation of this particular act of barricading. 2. The action of the pickets in following Lyons' car in early September was probably the result of understandable individual resentment for Lyons having struck the picket with'his car. In my judgment the action is not attributable to the Respondents. 3. With respect to the placing of the cup of sugar in Foreman McGinnis' gas thnk: there is no evidence as to how the object came to be there. I do not attribute responsibility to the Respondents. 4. The beating of McGinnis and Ulshoeffer on September 12 presents a more difficult question. This incident occurred after the Respondents had expressed their desire to cooperate with the police authorities; and presumably after Rountree had removed the barricade referred to in incident 1, above. It also occurred away from the scene of the dispute. In addition, no officials of the Respondents were involved. However, both Briggs and Nutter, members of Local 12, who were prominent in the beating, had also figured prominently in the acts of restraint and force about the plant -gates on August 28. Briggs' ac- tivities on August 28 have already been attributed to Local 12. Both Briggs and Nutter are mentioned in the testimony on numerous occasions in, connection with the picketing activities. The employees who witnessed the actions of Briggs and Nutter on August 28 could thus reasonably have concluded that they were acting with the approval of Local 12 and the Firemen. In the absence of clear disavowal the employees could likewise have concluded that the actions of Briggs 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and Nutter on September 12 were of the same character. Despite the Respond- ents' apparent official abandonment, after the arrival of the State Police, of their policy of organized force, the patterns of conduct they had devised and encouraged undoubtedly survived for some time thereafter. The beating of McGinnis and Ulshoeffer seem to me to represent a residual effect of those practices. It is therefore found that the beating is attributable to Local 12, the Firemen, and the Cooks and constituted further restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). With respect to the barricade placed before the North gate that day, however, since there is no evidence as to how or by whom it came to be placed, I do not attribute it to the Respondents. 5. The incident at the gate on September 23 which resulted in the arrest of Lessard does not appear to be sufficiently substantial to warrant a finding of restraint and coercion of employees. The circumstances do not indicate any concerted and deliberate effort to restrain entrance ; a purpose which, indeed, would have been somewhat foolhardy in view of the presence of Officer Turnbow. Lessard was summarily arrested, and if there had been any plan for the use of force it was effectively discouraged by Turnbow's prompt and firm intervention. 6. The beating of Ferre and Edwards, watchmen on the Rolando, though it has some of the aspect of the beating of McGinnis and Ulshoeffer, seems, however, to require a different result. Except that we have the nicknames of two of them, that they are longshoremen, and that Ferre saw them in the Longshore- men's Hall the night his pass was renewed, the identity of the assailants is not established. While it might rationally be suspected that the attack was con- nected with the labor dispute there is no actual evidence that it was-another characteristic distinguishing it from the beating of McGinnis and Ulshoeffer.17 Even if the connection be inferred, however, doubt remains as to the motive for the assault. It may have been in reprisal for Ferre's alleged gun shots from the Rolando, and, if so, would scarcely seem to be within the scope of any authority conferred on the assailants by the' Respondents. L am consequently unable to attribute this assault to the Respondents. 7. The tack incident on October 2, 1948, involved the use of some force in the throwing of objects at Office Manager Snyder's car. Whether the strewing of tacks on the roadway would constitute restraint need not be, determined at the present time. The entire incident was remote in time from the disorderly pattern that marked the inception of'the picketing. It was an isolated occurrence. The persons who participated are not identified. There is no direct evidence as. to who threw the tacks upon the' roadway. The plant was closed down at the time. ' Neither, Irwin nor Snyder were rank and file employees, and it is not 'necessarily inferrable that knowledge of the incident would come to the atten- tion of such employees and thus restrain and coerce them. I do not find any violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) by the Respondents with respect to this inci- dent. Compare the "tack incident related in Sunset Line and Twine Co., supra. Summary of Conclusions as to 8 (b) (1) (A) In summary A hen, it is found that in preventing entrance to the plant on August 27 and 28, 1948, by the use of force, restraint, and threat, and by the beat- ing of McGinnish and Ulshoeffer on September 12, 1948, Local 12, the Firemen, and the Cooks restrained and coerced employees, in violation of Section 8 (b) 17 Thus, note Briggs' declaration to Ulshoeffer to the effect that Ulshoeffer should "get off" the Rolando. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 81 (1) (A) of the Act, in the exercise of their right to work and to refrain from engaging in concerted activities, rights protected by Section 7 of the statute (Suni- set Line and Twine Company, supra). Several of the allegations of the complaint as to the charged 8 (b) (1) (A) allegations should probably be adverted to at this point in the interest of clari- fying the findings. The complaint alleged 8 (b) (1) (A) violations, inter alia, by (1) 'picketing Company premises in large numbers ; (2) obstructing egress and ingress of Company supplies, equipment, personnel, and finished products ; and (3) impeding the entrance of supervisory and managerial personnel. Ordinarily peaceful picketing in a primary labor dispute is, in my judgment, protected by Section 8 (c) of the statute. Picketing in a context of violence, or in such numbers, as to restrain, and with the purpose of restraining, entrance to a plant, exceed the bounds of permissible speech. Both these excesses were present here. The picketing at the plant gates on August 28 was inextricably bound up with forcible restraint and threats of physical reprisal, and cannot be separated from them. It is not, however, found that picketing "by large num- bers of persons" per se constituted a violation of the statute. The obstruction of entrance of rank and file employees has been found to have restrained and coerced them. (Sunset Line and Twine Cbmpany, supra.) It is not found, however, that the obstruction of deliveries to and from the plant by nonemployees of the Company, in the absence of the use of restraint and force which could be expected to come to the attention of employees and thus intimidate them, constituted aviolation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). Similarly with respect to the obstruction of entrance of supervisory and managerial em- ployees. It is not found that such action, although an unprotected concerted activity (International Nickel Company, 77 NLRB 286) per se constitutes re- straint and coercion of employees 18 Where, however, such obstruction takes place in the presence of rank and file employees intent upon, and denied en- trance to, a plant, it, provides the latter, unless assured to the contrary, with an example of what they may themselves expect; and is consequently a restraint upon them. Such was the situation here. Smith Cabinet Mfg. Co., Ina, 81 1NLRI3 886. E. The Boom Company: 8 (b) (4) (A) The complaint, as amended, further alleged that the Respondents, in violation of Section 8 (li) (4) (A) of the Act, induced and encouraged employees of the Boom Company to cease working "in order to compel the Boom Company to cease doing business with the Irwin-Lyons Company. The Boom Company is a public utility operating under franchise issued by the Public Utility Commission of the State of Oregon. Pursuant to its franchise, the Boom Company transports timber from logging areas along the South Fork of the Coos River to Coos Bay-an apparent distance of about 30 miles. The franchise gives the Boom Company 'exclusive right to transport logs along the river, It is required to accept and transport logs for all persons, at rates set by. the. Commission. . There are, however, apparently only three logging opera- tions along its route whom the Boom Company services : The Irwin-Lyons Com- pany, Kruse Logging Company, and. Dan Melton. Irwin-Lyons logs one of its ^ All unprotected concerted activities are not necessarily unfair labor practices. See Perry Norvell Company, supra, where the Board said, "There is an area of employee activity, not precisely defined, which while not constituting unfair labor practices under Section 8 (b) of the Act, is nevertheless not protected by the Board when employees seek affirmative relief themselves under Section 8 (a)'. 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD own tracts lying along the river using its own logging employees . Dan Melton is a logging contractor who logs Irwin-Lyons timber-property and delivers the logs by truck to Irwin-Lyons at the Boom Company's rafting grounds on the Coos River, from which point they are transported down river by the Boom Company to the Irwin-Lyons mill. Melton is paid so much a thousand feet by Irwin-Lyons for delivery at the rafting grounds. The Kruse Logging Com- pany, however, logs its own timber, sometimes selling it to Irwin-Lyons, who takes delivery at the rafting grounds. Within several clays after the Respondents began to picket the Irwin-Lyons mill, pickets carrying Longshoremen 's placards were also placed at a bridge on the Coos River, near the rafting grounds of the Boom Company, and up-river some miles from Coos Bay." This bridge is used both by logging employees of Irwin-Lyons and by employees of the Boom Company to get to their jobs. The Boom Company employees are members of the International Woodworkers of America, C. I. O. As these employees appeared for work one morning ac- companied by Dow Beckham, manager of .the Boom Company,. they met the pickets at the bridge. According to Beckham's testimony Vern Leneve, a long- shoreman and the picket captain, "told us that he wanted us to stop rafting, because they intended to close down all operations that had to do with Irwin- Lyons, to force them to bring this matter to a close quicker, or words to that effect." Beckham asked Leneve whethey they could not continue to raft the logs of Melton, because he was a small operator and financially more vulnerable. Beckham also asked to be allowed to continue maintenance work. Leneve stated that he would "see what he could do." On the following day, Leneve reported to Beckham that the maintenance work could be continued but that Melton's logs should not be rafted. The Boom Company then suspended all but main- tenance operations. Passes for the maintenance crew were thereafter issued by Longshoremen officials. The pickets remained in the area from. 2 weeks to a month ; the picketing was then apparently discontinued. The Boom Com- pany did not resume rafting operations, however, for about another month, for what reason does not clearly appear. While the record is not altogether clear on the point, apparently the only logs in the possession of the Boom Company at the time the picketing began, with the possible exception of several stray Kruse logs, were those which had been logged by Irwin-Lyons and Melton .20 Melton's logs, as I understand it, were the property of Irwin-Lyons. With delivery to the rafting grounds Melton's contractual obligation to Irwin-Lyons was discharged and his interest in the logs presumably ceased. Thus, so far as .the record reveals, all the logs in the river at the time the picketing of the Boom Company began, were Irwin-Lyons logs destined for use in the Irwin-Lyons mill. By virtue of stock ownership and managerial control in both Companies the individuals who own and operate the Boom Company have substantial ownership and operational interests in the Irwin-Lyons Company. - The, stock interests in the two Companies are as follows : 19 There is no evidence as to participation by the Firemen and Cooks in the picketing of the Boom Company . Dow Beckham , manager of the Boom Company , testified as follows : "They [the pickets ] bad a sign , a picket sign . I remember that it had I. L. W. U. on it, and that they were unfair to-that Irwin-Lyons were unfair. Whether there were any other unions on it or not , I don't remember." 20 Beckham testified that at the time of the hearing Kruse had about 3 million feet in the river up=stream , but there is no indication as to when they were placed there , or whether their movement had been impeded by the. shut-down of the Boom Company. At the same time Irwin-Lyons had over 6 million feet in the river, and Melton apparently none. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 83 The Boom Company Individual (Shares ) Irwin -Lyons H. W. Irwin-------------------------------- 62% 27/8 James A. Lyons------------------------------ 62% 2% Dorise C. Irwin------------------------------ 62s/s 27/s Jane S. Lyons------------------------------- 623/8 3% Jean Irwin---------------------------------- 623/s 61/4 Joan Irwin---------------------------------- 623/s 61/4 Stewart Lyons---------------------- -------- 62% 61/4 Susan Lyons-------------------------------- 623/s 61/4 John L. Hawkins---------------------------- 1 1 J. E. Peggs---------------------------------- ----- 101/ Robert R. Dutton_________________________________ 1 M. F. Thomas -------------------------------- ----- 1 Total Shares-------------------------- 500 50 Both Companies are thus seen to be largely owned by the Irwin and Lyons families. The individuals who own the Boom Company also own 75 percent of the stock interests in the Irwin-Lyons Company, and in many cases, in about the same ratio. Managerial control is substantially the same by reason of James A. Lyons' position as president and active operating head of both Companies. H. W. Irwin is secretary-treasurer of both Companies. The officers are as follows: Boom Company Irwin-Lyons President-------------- James A. Lyons James A. Lyons Secretary-Treasurer-_-- H. W. Irwin H. W. Irwin Vice President--------- Jane S. Lyons J. H. Peggs Manager-------------- Dow Beckham John L. Hawkins Hawkins, in addition to being manager of Irwin-Lyons, is one of the three members of the Board of Directors of the Boom Company, the other two being James A. Lyons and H. W. Irwin. It is thus seen that the two Companies, though ostensibly separate enter- prises, are in fact substantially engaged in one straight line operation-that of cutting logs, transporting them down river and sawing them into lumber at the mill. Both enterprises are carried on substantially by and for the benefit of the same individuals . The owners of Irwin-Lyons thus had not mere important pecuniary investment in the Boom Company, and not control alone ; but in addi- tion utilized it as a necessary adjunct to the production of lumber. In this sense, the operations of the Boom Company, so far as directed to the transportation of logs to the Irwin-Lyons mill, constituted but a phase of the business of pro- ducing lumber. It is thus a completely different situation from that where mere pecuniary interest alone is subjected to attack in a labor dispute:' The fact that the common ownership is by individuals and not by the corporate organizations themselves, while a factor to be weighed in determining the actuality and effect of interest, is not controlling. In my judgment, so far as the issue of the legality of a strike against the transportation of Irwin-Lyons logs to the, Irwin-Lyons mill is concerned, the two organizations constituted one economic enterprise. 21 For example , as was suggested in the oral argument , the picketing of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, because the Irwin-Lyons stockholders , or even Irwin -Lyons itself, owned stock interests , or even control , in Pacific Gas and Electric. S77359-50-vol. 87-7 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The fact that the Boom Company is a public utility does not seem.to affect that conclusion. It is not necessary to determine on this record the legality of a refusal, or of attempts to induce a refusal, by Boom Company employees, to handle the logs of other customers of the Boom Company. That situation is not presented and I express no opinion on it. In fact, the General Counsel does not contend that the Respondents violated the Act by any inducement or refusal to handle the logsof Melton or Kruse. I conclude that, in the light of the issues raised and the facts developed, as I interpret them, the activities of the Boom Company in transporting Irwin- Lyons logs to the latter's mill constitute a segment of a total operation by Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company. As Senator Taft stated during the debates on the Act (93 Cong. Rec. 4323, April 29, 1947), "This provision [Section 8 (b) (4)] makes it unlawful to resort to a secondary boycott to injure the business of a third person who is wholly unconcerned in the disagreement between an employer and his employees." The Boom Company when handling logs of Irwin-Lyons destined for use in the Irwin-Lyons mill is scarcely; in the context of the present facts, an unconcerned employer. It is therefore found that the Respondents have not induced or encouraged the employees of another employer in violation of Section S (b) (4) (A) of the Act 22 F. The 8 (b) (2) 1. At San Francisco The complaint alleged that the Respondents, by their actions at San Fran- cisco and their later activities at Coos Bay, attempted to cause the Company to discharge personnel manning the Rolando, because of their membership in the S. U. P. It is not disputed that the Firemen and Cooks demanded that the Com- pany hire members of their organizations to man the engine and steward's de- partments of the Rolando. Compliance with this demand would necessarily, have resulted in the displacement of the S. U. P. members employed in those departments. The cause of this displacement would have been the nonmember- ship of those employees in the Firemen or Cooks. Since neither of those organ- izations was at that time a majority representative of such employees their discharge because of nonmembership therein would have been a violation of Section 8 (a) (3). For the Respondents to cause or attempt to cause such a result would be a violation of Section 8 (b) (2). The question, then, is whether the Respondents have engaged in such action. Not all measures by a union designed to procure illegal discrimination by an employer against his employees is made unlawful by Section 8 (b) (2). Un- like Section 8 (b) (4) (A) which outlaws objectives, regardless of method, (See Wadsworth Bldg. Co. Inc., 81 NLRB 802). Section 8 (b) (2) pro-, hibits means, and not the result. This seems clear from the legislative his- tory. As originally drafted the section forbade unions "to persuade or attempt to persuade" an employer so to discriminate. In conference this language was changed to the present provision "to cause or attempt to cause." The reason, for this change, as given by Senator Taft, was that "the House Conferees objected on the ground that [the original language] seemed inconsistent with the pro- visions guaranteeing all parties freedom of expression." (93 Cong. Rec. 6600.) .The effect of this revision was to legalize the use of speech by unions in order to 22 See Douds v. Metropolitan Federation, 75 F. Supp. 67 (D.-C. N: Y.). NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 85 induce an employer to discriminate against employees, in the absence of force or promise of benefit. Picketing devoid of the latter influences may in the appropriate circumstances be speech, the expression of view, argument, or opinion, and consequently privileged under the statute. At San Francisco the evidence is that, other than the picketingwhich, as it has been found, was on the whole peaceful-the only overt acts in which the Firemen and Cooks engaged were the requests for a contract and the hiring of their members, picketing, and threats to picket. These appearing to be no more than techniques of persuasion devoid of threat of force or promise of benefit, it is found that the acts of the Firemen and Cooks at San Francisco did not consti- tute a violation of Section 8 (b) (2).2' ' Local 10 of the Longshoremen, however, did more at San Francisco than make demands and picket. It engaged in a. strike by withdrawing the services of longshoremen. While it is not clear from the record whether the longshoremen: at San Francisco were employees of the Company or of the stevedoring contractor; that fact does not seem material. A strike by a union to compel an employer to violate Section 8 (a) (3) is a violation of Section 8 (b) (2). (National Maritime Union, 78 NLRB 971.) Local 10, however, is not named as a Respondent, and there is no evidence of sponsorship or participation by the Longshoremen's International in the events at San Francisco. Moreover, the gravamen of the violation of Section 8 (a) (3) is discrimination in employment on the basis of union membership. Local 10's.demands were unrelated to' the union affilia- tion of the Company's sailors. They related only to the division of work as between stevedores and sailors, without reference to the union membership or nonmembership of either. Although all three unions established picket lines thereafter-which were maintained simultaneously throughout the day-there is no evidence that they had at that time (though they did later at Coos Bay) joined forces in a common effort to support each other's demands. It is therefore found that none of the Respondents engaged in violations of Section 8 (b) (2) by their conduct at San Francisco. 2. At Coos Bay A different result is required, however, with respect to the conduct of the Firemen, the Cooks, and Local 12 of the Longshoremen at Coos Bay. Force and violence were employed by those Unions to compel compliance with their de- mands. These were overt acts within the intendment of Section 8 (b) (2), and not privileged speech, even though carried out under the guise of, or in combi- nation with, picketing. (Section 8 (8) (c) : Milk Wagon Drivers v. Meadowmoor, 312 U. S. 287.) In addition, Local 12 struck the Santa Leonore. At Coos Bay, Local12'joined forces with the Firemen and Cooks in a common effort to compel submission to the demands of all three organizations. Here, unlike San Francisco, a Strike Committee was set tip on which Local 12 was, represented, the picket signs carried the names of all three unions,, officials of Local 12 issued passes through the picket line. . Local 12's hall was used as. strike headquarters and as a billeting place for out-of-town pickets of the other' unions. Further, at the conciliation meeting on September 10, Local 12 declined' to settle its demands without a common settlement. Local. 12 and the Firemen and the Cooks thus attempted to cause the Company to discriminate in regard. to the stewards and engine room departments, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)_ 23 Cf. American Radio Association, 82 NLRB 1344, where the Board found a threat tu: strike to constitute a violation of Section 8 (b) (2). 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Prior to the hearing in the present case, a hearing under Section 10 (k) of the Act, asserting the existence of a work jurisdictional dispute, was held by the Board upon charges of violation by the Firemen and Cooks of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, based upon the instant situation. Since the close of the instant hearing that case has been decided by the Board adversely to the Firemen and Cooks.24 The Respondents assert here that the 10 (k) proceeding arises out of the same facts as part of the present case-namely, determination as to what union has jurisdiction over the engine room and stewards departments of the Rolaoado. Since the 8 (b) (2) allegations of the instant complaint are grounded in part on that dispute, the Respondents' argument continues, the instant 8 (b) (2) allegations ought not to have been brought and should now be dismissed. This argument is bottomed upon the claimed contemplation of Congress that violations based on 8 (b) (4) (D) situations should not be charged except for persistence in jurisdictional claims after adverse decision by the Board in a 10 (k) proceeding. The statute, however, makes no such distinction. Section 8 (b) (4) (D) outlaws jurisdictional strikes, and their inducement, in the absence of a certifi- cation by the Board to which the employer is not conforming. Its operation is not made dependent upon the outcome of a 10 (k) proceeding. However much equitable merit there may be in the assertion that collateral violations ought not to be pressed while a basic legal question possibly diapositive of the entire issue is pending and undetermined, that consideration must be addressed to the General Counsel's discretion. So far as the Trial Examiner is concerned, the only permissible inquiry is whether the conduct involved constituted a violation of the statute. It is therefore found that the pendency or disposition of the 10 (k) proceedings before the Board has no apparent effect upon the legal propriety of proceeding with the present case. G. General co ela.sions 1. It is found that Local 12,' the Firemen, and the Cooks, by their acts in the course of picketing the Company's plant at Coos Bay on August 27 and 28, 1948, and by the beating of McGinnis and Ulshoeffer on September 12, restrained and coerced employees, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the statute, in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7. 2. It is found that the same Respondents by their acts at Coos Bay, Oregon, in violation of Section 8 (b) (2), attempted to cause the Company to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3). 3. It is found that none of the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor prac- tices in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 4. It is found that the Longshoremen's International has not committed any unfair labor practices charged in the complaint. Iv. THE EFFECT OF THU UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I, above, have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States , and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. '4 Irwin-Lyons Lumber Co., 82 NLRB 916, Cases Nos. 36-CD-2 and 36-CD-3. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS V. THE REMEDY 87 Having found that certain of the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices it will he recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take. certain affirmative action effectuating the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record of the case, I make the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. Local 12 of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, CIO ; National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, CIO ; and Pacific Coast Marine Firemen, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers Association, are labor or- ganizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company, Coos Bay, Oregon, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By restraining and coercing employees of the Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Local 12, the Firemen, and the Cooks have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 4. By attempting to cause the Company to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3), Local 12, the Firemen, and the Cooks have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 7. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union has not engaged in unfair labor practices. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Local 12 of the international Longshoremen's and Ware- housemen's Union, CIO; National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, CIO; and Pacific Coast Marine Firemen, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers Association ; and their officers and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Restraining and coercing employees of Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company in the exercise of their rights to engage in, or to refrain from, union or concerted activities, as guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act ; (b) Attempting to cause that Company to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in their business offices, where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix A. Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being signed by official representatives of these Respondents, be posted and maintained for a period of sixty (60) con- secutive clays thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by these Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Wash- ington,) in writing, within twenty (20) days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order what steps they have taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended. that the complaint be dismissed, with respect to the following allegations: (1) that the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act; (2) that International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union engaged in any violations of the Act; and (3) that the Portland local of the Cooks engaged in any violations of the Act. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof; and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the por- tions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, ' and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom- mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Dated at Washington, D. C., this 31st day of May 1949. CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Trial Examiner. APPENDIX A NOTICE To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 12, CIO ; NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS, CIO; AND PACIFIC COAST MARINE FIRE- MEN, OILERS, WATERTENDERS AND WIPERS ASSOCIATION Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of IRwIN-LYoNS LUMBER COM- PANY in the exercise of their rights to engage in or to refrain from union or concerted activities, guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS 89 WE WILL NOT attempt to cause IRWIN-LYONS LUMBER COMPANY to dis- criminate against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 12, CIO, Dated -------------------- By ---------------------------------------- (Representative) ( Title) NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS, CIO, Dated -------------------- By ----------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) PACIFIC COAST MARINE FIREMEN, OILERS, WATERTENDERS AND WIPERS ASSOCIATION Dated -------------------- By ----------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.