Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp.

I)I(ISIONS OF NATIONAL. ILABOR RI.AI IONS BOARI) Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Asso- ciation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFI,-CIO and Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp. Cases 29 ('(' 618, 29 C'B 3314, and 29 CB 3381 July 10, 1979 DI)lCISION AND ORDER BY MEMBIRS JNKINS, MURPIIY, AND) TRUISI)AI.I On January 16, 1979, Administrative Law Judge HIerbert Silberman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional abor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefsl and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and conclusions2 of' the Administrative Law Judge, only to the extent consistent herewith, and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by threaten- ing the driver of a Vancar truck; by delaying a truck of Roadway Express, Inc., hereinafter called Road- way, from leaving Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp., hereinaf- ter called Stokvis; and by delaying a Vancar truck from entering Stokvis; and violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by picketing the terminal of Roadway and IML Freight, Inc., hereinafter called IML. For the reasons set forth below, however, we do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's findings that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by threatening Perkins Trucking Co., Inc., herein referred to as Perkins, to force it to cease handling and transporting Stokvis' products and to cease doing business with Stokvis; and Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) by picketing Perkins to in- duce its employees to refuse to handle Stokvis' freight. I. Respondent sent Stokvis a telegram demanding recognition of its production and maintenance em- i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad- millistrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 In the absence of exceptions., we adopt, pro forrna, the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of the complaint's allegation that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)( )(A) of the Act by kicking a nonstriking Stokvis employ- ee's van as it crossed the primary picket line. ployees on May 2, 1978.3 On May 8, a strike to com- pel recognition was begun. On May iI, a Perkins truck arrived at Stokvis to pick up Stokvis' products. After several pickets spoke to the driver, he pulled into adjoining premises and telephoned )uTot. the vice president of Perkins, and told him that he was unable to make the pickup. DuTot and a shop flore- man drove over to Stokvis and exchanged places with the driver. Thereupon, the pickets gathered around the truck shouting obscenities. One of the pickets jumped onto the running board of the truck and veiled at I)uTot, "We're going to rape your wife .... I'm going to break you legs." He then pointed to I)uTot's face and stated. "Just remember what I look like, because I know who you are. I'm going to get you . .. [Wie're going to get all your trucks, you run a lot of them." At which point, DuTot called on two policemen to move the pickets, and the truck contin- ued to the loading dock. The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon- dent was responsible for the threats made to DuTot and their object was to force DuTot and Perkins to cease handling and transporting Stokvis' products and to cease doing business with Stokvis. Accord- ingly, he found that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). However, it is well established that pri- mary pickets may persuade "neutral" employers from making pickups and deliveries at the premises of the primary dispute, and that the use of violence or threats of violence is immaterial with respect to an alleged 8(b)(4) violation.4 Here the picketing was, as indicated, done at the site of' the primary dispute (Stokvis), and the object of the threats was to prevent a neutral employer (Perkins) from crossing the pri- mary picket line to make the pickup. While arguably, the threat, "Wie're going to get all your trucks, you run a lot of' them and we'll get every one of them," might be construed as an unlawful threat to picket Perkins' trucks wherever they went if they did not cease handling Stokvis' goods, we do not believe that such a construction is warranted under the circum- stances. At best, the threat was ambiguous since it was made in the context of other threats aimed at stopping the Perkins truck from crossing the picket line. Furthermore, since Perkins made regular pick- ups at Stokvis, the threat can be interpreted as threat- ening only to "get" the trucks attempting to make pickups at Stokvis. Accordingly, we find that, since the picketing occurred at the premises of the struck employer and that the threats were directed at pre- venting Perkins' vice president and a supervisor from 3 All dates refer to 1978. International Rice Milling Co. v. N L R B. 341 U.S. 665 (1951 I ocal 761. International Union of lectrical. Radio and Machine Workers. A Fl. ('10 General Electri Compan/ v. N.I.R B. 366 I.S. 667. 673 674 (19611; and Dover (Corporation. Vorrt Division. 211 NLRB 955 (1974). 243 NI RB No. 39 34() SHO()PME N'S i.(OCAI. NI()N NO. 455 crossing the primary picket line to make a regular pickup, the Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by such threats.' 2. On August 2, approximately 8 to 12 striking Stokvis employees, including the picket line captain, arrived at the Perkins terminal at 7 a.m. They were carrying "strike" signs. but engaged in no picketing; they stood 5 to 10 feet from the terminal gate. They told Moore. the assistant shop steward at Perkins, that they were individuals trying to gain information for their personal use and wanted to know if Perkins was handling any Stokvis freight. They were told by another Perkins employee who was present that Stok- vis freight had not been carried during the last couple of weeks. The Stokvis striking employees left about 8 a.m. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Re- spondent was responsible for the actions of the strik- ing Stokvis employees and found that their presence outside the Perkins terminal with "strike" signs, to- gether with their conversation with Moore. consti- tuted an unlawful appeal to Perkins to refrain from handling Stokvis freight. and thus violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B). We disagree. Since the striking Stokvis employees merely milled outside the Perkins terminal for an hour and only sought to find out whether Per- kins currently was handling any Stokvis freight, we find that the General Counsel has failed to establish that Respondent, through the Stokvis employees, en- gaged in conduct with an object of inducing Perkins' employees to refrain from handling Stokvis' freight. Accordingly, we dismiss the 8(b)(4)(i)(B) allegation of the complaint alleging the foregoing conduct to be unlawful.6 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or- der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be- low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Asso- ciations of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, New York, New York, its offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as modified below: I. Substitute the following for paragraph (c): "(c) Engaging in, or inducing, or encouraging any individual employed by Roadway Express, Inc.; IML The General Counsel does not allege those actions to be 8(hX I A) viola- tions. I Contrary to his colleagues. Member Truesdale agrees with the Adminis- trative Law Judge that Respondent violated Sec 8(bh4XiK(B) Freight, Inc.; or any other person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, to en- gage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his em- ployment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, ma- terials, or commodities or to perform any services, and from threatening. coercing, or restraining the above-named employers or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or require the above-named employers or any other such person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Stokvis Multi- Ton Corp., or to cease doing business with Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): "(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 29 signed copies of said notice for posting by Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp.; Roadway Express, Inc.: IML Freight, Inc.; Vancar Motor Lines, Inc.; or any of them, if said companies are willing to post such no- tices, at places where notices to their respective em- ployees are customarily posted." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDI X NOTI(E To EMPI.OYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAI. LABOR REIATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Wi' wII.I. NOI restrain or coerce employees of Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp.: Roadway Express, Inc.: Vancar Motor Lines, Inc.: or any other em- ployer, by preventing or impeding them from en- tering or leaving the premises of Stokvis Multi- Ton Corp.. or by threatening to inflict bodily in- jury or other harm upon them. WE WIt.L NOT engage in, or induce, or encour- age any individual employed by Roadway Ex- press, Inc.; IML Freight, Inc.; or any other other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal, in the course of his employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the above-named employers or any other person en- gaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or require the above-named employers or any such other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting. or otherwise dealing in 341 [) ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI) the products of Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp., or to cease doing business with Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp. Wt WtI.L NOi in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. SII()P'MIN'S L()(AI. UNION No. 455. IN I R- NA )NAI ASS()IAIION ()I BRII)(;E, SIRII( - IlURAI. ANI) ORNAMiENIAL IRO()N WORKERS, AFL CIO DECISION SIATEMENI o(F 111 CAS HERBERI SII.BERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: These proceedings, consolidated by an order dated August 29, 1978, were heard in Brooklyn, New York, on September I 1, 12, and 19, 1978. Following the close of the hearing, briefs were filed with me on behalf of the General Counsel and Charging Party. Upon the entire record in these cases, and from my ob- servation of the witnesses and their demeanor. I make the following: FINDINGS o0 FA( I 1. JURISDI)I ION Respondent Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, Interna- tional Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein also called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It has been seeking recognition as the collective-bar- gaining representative of employees of Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp., herein called Stokvis or the Company, and the events which gave rise to the alleged unfair labor practices developed from the Union's organizational campaign. Stok- vis, a New York corporation, is engaged in the manufac- ture, sale, and distribution of material handling equipment and related products at its place of business in Hicksville, New York. In the course and conduct of its business, Stok- vis' sales of products, which are shipped from its Hicksville location through channels of interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other than the State of New York, annually is in excess of $50,000. I find that Stokvis is an employer as defined in Section 2(2) and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues raised by the charges and complaints in these proceedings. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Pleadings Upon a charge filed by Stokvis on May 12, 1978, a com- plaint in Case 29-CC-618, dated June 28, 1978, was issued which, as amended on August 29, 1978, in substance, al- leges' that in furtherance of the Union's labor dispute with Stokvis, a strike against Stokvis was begun on May 8. 1978, which continues to date. In connection therewith, and with an object of forcing and requiring various persons to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Stokvis, and to cease doing business with Stokvis, Respondent: (I) On May I I and 12, 1978, respec- tively, threatened, coerced, and restrained Perkins Trucking Co., Inc., herein called Perkins, and Roadway Express, Inc., herein called Roadway: (2) on June 12. 1978. induced and encouraged individuals employed by IML Freight. Inc., herein called IML, by maintaining a picket line at IML's West Babylon, New York, terminal, to engage in a strike and to refuse to perform services for IML and threatened, coerced, and restrained IML: (3) on June 16. 1978, induced and encouraged individuals employed by Perkins to engage in a strike and a refusal to perform services for Perkins and threatened, coerced, and restrained Perkins by leading a large group of individuals onto the premises of Perkins: and (4) on August 2. 1978, induced and encouraged individuals employed by Perkins to engage in a strike and a refusal to perlorm services for Perkins by establishing a picket line at Perkins' Miller Road terminal in Hicksville. New York, and threatened, coerced, and restrained Perkins.' The fbregoing are alleged to constitute violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Respondent duly filed an answer, gener- ally denying that it has engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and setting forth various affirmative defenses. Upon a charge filed on May 12, 1978, in Case 29 CB- 3314, a complaint dated June 26, 1978, was issued alleging, in substance, that in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) Respon- dent: (I) On various days between May 9 and 17. 1978, threatened employees of Stokvis by expressions of intention to inflict bodily injury on them and to do other harm to their persons and property: (2) on May 11, in the presence of employees of Stokvis and Perkins, threatened supervisors of Perkins with harm to their persons and property; and (3) on May 1 I and 12, in the presence of employees of Stokvis and Perkins. blocked the driveway entrance and exit to Stokvis' premises and attempted to prevent supervisors of Perkins and Roadway from entering or leaving the prem- ises. Respondent duly filed an answer, denying that it has engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and setting forth an affirmative defense. Upon a charge of unfair labor practices filed on July 5, 1978, in Case 29-CB-3381, a complaint, dated August 29, 1978, was issued alleging, in substance, that in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, Respondent: (I) on various dates between June 9 and July 7, 1978, in the vicinity of the picket line established at Stokvis' premises, threatened em- ployees of Stokvis and IML with harm to their persons and property; (2) on June 9, 1978, threatened employees of IML ' At the hearing, the complaint was further amended upon motion made by the General Counsel. Thereafter, in his brief filed in these proceedings, the General Counsel requested leave to withdraw said amendment of the complaint. The request is hereby granted, and the allegations of the com- plaint in Case 29-CC-618 to the effect that Respondent engaged in viola- tions of Sec. 8(b)(4X B) by reason of conduct occurring on May 26 and June 16, 1978, involving G. G & G Express Freight. Inc., are deemed withdrawn. 2 Although not covered by a specific allegation of the complaint, evidence of another similar incident occurring on September 5, 1978, was fully liti- gated at the hearing. 342 StIOPMEN'S LOCAI. UNION NO. 455 with harm to their persons and property: (3) on June 20 or 23, 1978. threatened employees of Vancar Motor Lines. Inc., herein called Vancar. with harm to their persons and property; (4) on June 16, 1978, at Stokvis' premises, in the presence of Stokvis' employees, threatened supervisors of G, G & G Express Freight, Inc.. herein called G & G,. with harm to their persons: and (5) on May 26. 1978. threatened supervisors of G & G with bodily injury.l Respondent duly filed an answer, denying that it has engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and setting forth an affirmative de- fense. B. Back ground On May 2, 1978, the Union sent a telegram to Stokvis demanding recognition as representative of its approxi- mately 40 production and maintenance employees and on the same day filed a petition for certification of representa- tive with the Board which was docketed as Case 29 RC 4211. A strike to compel recognition that still continues was begun on May 8.4 In active charge of strike activities was Union Vice President Antonio Schifano who, after the first week, was succeeded by Executive Board Member Kenneth Mansmann. Affected in various ways by the strike were three inter- state carriers (Perkins, Roadway, and IML), who transport finished products for Stokvis, and two local haulers (G & G and Vancar) who, after the strike began, were engaged by Stokvis to handle its freight. In its brief, Respondent argues that as of the time of the hearing, the strike was in its fifth month and "the prolonged strike has been a peaceful one." Whether or not true, this assertion has little meaning because physical violence is not the only indicium of unlawful strike conduct. Moreover, since July 31, 1978, the Union has been restrained in cer- tain of its activities by an order issued by District Court Judge Nickerson enjoining conduct directed towards Per- kins, Roadway, or IML which would constitute violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii)(B).' From the onset of the strike, the Union has maintained approximately 15 pickets who carry "on strike" signs at the premises of Stokvis during the Company's normal business hours. Schifano and Mansmann testified that they in- structed the pickets not to block anyone from entering or leaving the premises and not to make any threats, although they did not discourage the pickets from screaming obsceni- ties at persons crossing the picket line. Mansmann testified that he told the pickets, "I don't care how loud you get." Respondent takes the position that because of these instruc- tions responsibility for unlawful conduct by pickets cannot be attributed to the Union absent evidence that Schifano or Mansmann witnessed the incident, or that the event was called to the attention of either, and no effort to disavow it was made. This proposition too narrowly limits the agency The allegations of the complaint were narrowed by the bill of particulars, dated September 7. 1978. and filed by the General Counsel. 4All dates refer to the year 1978. See Richman v. Shopmen's Local No, 455. International Assxoiation oj Bridge, Sructural and Ornamental Iron Workers. AFL CIO. 99 LRRM 2888 (1978). relationship between Respondent and its pickets. Union re- sponsibility is measured not by sellf-serving testimony as to what may or may not have been told the pickets, but by the conduct of the striking employees which the Union permit- ted or condoned., Where, as here, a union in maintaining and policing a picket line tolerates pickets swarming around vehicles entering or leaving the premises and yelling at the occupants of the vehicles, it should anticipate that conduct of this nature might result in interference with the ingress or egress of vehicles and in some pickets shouting not only obscenities, but also threats.' In such instances, the union bears responsibility for the pickets' misconduct even if the pickets exceeded or ignored instructions. As the Board has stated: It is ... well established that "where a union autho- rizes a picket line. it is required to retain control over the picketing. If a union is un'villing or unable to take the necessary steps to control its pickets, it must bear the responsibility for their misconduct." Similarly. if pickets engage in misconduct in the presence of a union agent, and that agent fails to disavow that con- duct and take corrective measures, the union may be held responsible. The burden, of course, is on the Gen- eral Counsel to come forward with sufficient evidence to establish either that the union authorized the picket- ing or that the union had knowledge of the misconduct and failed to disavow it and take corrective action. Ab- sent such proof, the Board cannot hold a union liable for picketers' misconduct, however reprehensible. C. The Perkins Incidents On May II at or about 2:30 p.m., a Perkins' tractor- trailer being driven by James Guinta arrived at Stokvis. After several pickets spoke with Guinta, he drove the truck into the adjoining premises of Anchor Chemical Company from where he telephoned Philip DuTot, vice president of Perkins, to report that he was unable to make the pickup at Stokvis. Thereupon DuTot. together with Perkins' shop foreman, Fred Mysliwieck, drove to Anchor Chemical. They relieved Guinta and got into the cab of the tractor with Mysliwieck in the driver's seat and DuTot in the pas- senger's seat.9 The pickets, including Schifano, gathered around the truck screaming obscenities at the occupants. Johan Bel, one of the pickets, jumped onto the running I See Ser'Nice Employees International Union. Local 254, A FL CIO Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology ). 218 N IRB 1399 (1975). enfd. 535 F.2d 1335 (Ist Cir. 1976). 7 Every shout by a picket expressing an intention to inflict injury or dam- age is not necessarily an unlawful threat. The test is whether, in the circum- stances, a reasonable person to whom the remark is addressed would feel threatened. E United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industo of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 195, AFL CIO (McCormack-Young Corporation). 233 NLRB 1087 (1977). 9 Schifano testified that as Mysliwieck was walking from the automobile to the truck he intercepted Mysliwieck and informed him that there was a strike going on, to which Mysliwieck replied, "I am not even a driver ... If don't drive this truck into Stokvis. the son of a bitch is going to fire me and I have to do it" Then, according to Schifano's further testimony. other pickets began shouting and cursing with remarks like. "I have a family, ts, and you are taking the bread out of our mouths ." and various other things. 343 D E('ISIONS OF NATIONA. L.ABOR REI.ATIONS BOARI) board on DuTot's side of the truck. According to D uTot, Bel shouted, " 'We're going to rape your wifte.... I'm going to break your legs.' And he pointed right to I[)u'l ot's] face and said. 'Just remember what I look like, because I know who you are. I'm going to get you.' . . . [W]e're going to get all your trucks, you run a lot of them and we'll get every one of them.""' DuTot further testified that he called to two policemen who were in ront of the truck to move the pick- ets aside. "The police started to hack them up, and we slowly- we had trouble getting out because it was a steep grade. Quite frankly, we were nervous. We got over toward onto the parking area of Stokvis. And after some negotiations, we finally got into the platform." The entire maneuver required between 5 and 10 minutes, when nor- mally it takes about 2 minutes. As it is uncertain from DuTot's testimony whether the additional time required to dock the truck was because the truck was blocked by the pickets or because of the steep grade and the driver's nervousness, I find that the evidence does not establish that the pickets unlawfully blocked Per- kins' truck from entering Stokvis' premises. However, I at- tribute responsibility to Respondent for the remarks Bel made to DuTot, and I find that they constituted a threat against both DuTot and Perkins in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) since the object was to force DuTot and Per- kins to cease handling and transporting products of Stokvis and to cease doing business with Stokvis." On June 17, Mansmann and several Stokvis' striking em- ployees went to Perkins' Hicksville terminal arriving about 7 a.m. The facility has two gates. Construction work was '0 Bel's version of what happened differs from DuTot's. Bel testified that he walked to the driver's side of the tractor and asked Mysliwieck and DuTot to respect the picket line. explaining that the people are trying to get a union and they're fighting for bread and butter for themselves and their families. DuTot yelled that he should "get the f- out of here." Then. ac- cording to Bel, "I pointed my finger at him and I said. 'You get a good look at my face because I am going to be on this picket line.' And at that point IDuTotl motioned to a police officer." When the police officer arrived, DuTot told him that they wanted to drive into Stokvis. Bel backed away from the tractor and screamed at DuTot. "You strike breaking son of a bitch." The police officer told the pickets that they cannot block the truck and directed them to back away. Although Bel protested that they were not blocking the truck or trying to prevent it from driving into Stokvis, the pickets returned to the street and resumed patrolling the driveway. I credit DuTot. who impressed me as being a more reliable witness than Bel, to the extent that his testimony differs from Bel's. It is noted that, at the time of the hearing, Bel had been a trustee of the Union for about I year and prior thereto, had held the official position of conductor of the Union for 3 years. In addition, from time to time, as in this instance. Bel had been invited by Schifano to join pickets at premises being struck by the Union. Thus, while DuTot's interest in these proceedings is limited. Bel, as a titled func- tionary of the Union for 4 years and as an invitee of Schifano to participate in the picketing, has a substantial interest i the outcome of' these proceed- ings. 11 See Teanusers. Chauffeurs. Wurehousemen d Helpers, Local 542 (Air Support Fcdrliies, Inc, d/h/a Shuker Expre.ss Deliver Serice), 191 NLRB 515, 521 (1971). 2 Mansmann testified that he was accompanied by six to seven strikers. Robert Fenty testified that he observed 12 to 13 men at the Perkins terminal on the occasion in question. It is immaterial which is the correct number. According to Mansmann. the reason he did not go alone was that at the outset of the strike he told the striking employees that nothing would be done behind their hacks so that striking employees were always in his com- pany whenever he was engaged in an activity involving the strike and on June 17 "It]hey insisted on going." in progress outside the north gate. Mansmann instructed the men with him to stand together in that area, which was about 25 feet east of' the gate, and "not to interfere." Mans- mann told someone employed by Perkins that he wished to see the shop steward. Attilio Vegessi. the shop steward at Perkins for Teamsters Local 807, came out to speak with Mansmann. According to Vegessi. whom I credit, "they told me that Stokvis was out on strike, and Perkins received a trailer load, was i aware of it? I said 'Yes, I .ust found out about it this morning.' And he asked me if'l . .. would help them b not going down to Stokvis . . . lie asked men if I would help him stop the gypsies bringing in the freight I guess. or going down there and picking up the freight down at Stokvis.... I says. 'I don't know. I would have to talk to Mr. enty on that.' " Vegessi further testified that while he was outside with Mansmann he overhead him say to the people who accompanied him, "We don't want no prob- lems. L.et everybody out." When Robert Fenty, vice president of operations for Per- kins. arrived at the terminal at 7:30 a.m.. a meeting was quickly arranged and was held in the ('ompany's offices. It was attended by Fenty, Don Klassen. executive ice pres- ident for Perkins, Vegessi. Mansmann. and Thomas Kerk- hoven. a striking Stokvis employee. The meeting was brief. According to Vegessi. Mansmann 'introduced himself as a representative of Local 455, and asked cooperation from the Perkins Trucking Company if' they would stop going down into Stokvis to make a pick up ... Mr. Fenty said he would get back to him." 4 Mansmann and the men who accompanied him left Per- kins at 7:50 a.m. During the time they were at the Perkins terminal, there was no interruption in an of Perkins' nor- mal business activities. In his brief the General Counsel referring to the fact that striking Stokvis employees had congregated about 25 feet from the north gate of the Perkins terminal, argues that "[lalthough they carried no signs or placards and did not patrol the area, the conduct of Respondent and the pickets on this day constituted picketing within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(b)(4)." While I agree that in some circumstances the presence of a congregation of persons will constitute picket- ing even absent signs and patrolling, nevertheless I find, contrary to the General Counsel, that the conduct of Mans- mann and the striking Stokvis employees at the Perkins' terminal on June 17 did not constitute picketing. The evi- dence is that the striking Stokvis employees were stationed sufficiently far from the gate leading into Perkins' terminal that no employees or other persons entering or leaving were " A gyps) is an owner-operator engaged in an independent trucking oip- eraion. 14 According to enty. Mansmann "asked us lir our cooperation. I said I would get back [to himl in the afternoon with my position. hut I ,would appreciate it if he would remove himself .. and the pickets. which he did so. lHe went out and they all left." Fenty lurlher testified that nobod) said anything to him directly about receiving freight at the Perkins ernminal. and he understood that when Mansmann asked for cooperation. Mansmiann was asking Perkins not to cross the picket line at Stokls 1i In his brief, the General Counsel incorrectly refers to the distance as "about 10 feet.' 344 SHOPMI N'S OCAL UNION NO. 455 in ans way deterred. Furthermore, the testimony of both Vegessi and Mansmann makes it clear that Respondent did not seek to interfere in any way with ingress or egress from the premises. It is also noted that. although no promises were made to Mansmann by Fenty during their meeting. when the meeting ended, Mansmann and all the striking Stokvis employees left the terminal. I find, contrary to Gen- eral Counsel, that the presence of Mansmann and the strik- ing Stokvis employees at the Perkins' terminal on the morn- ing of June 17 did not violate Section 8(h)(4)(B) of the Act. The General Counsel further argues that "Mansmann re- quested that Vegessi stop the independent truckers from delivering to Perkins the goods they were picking up at Stokvis.... Inasmuch as Respondent was inducing an em- ployee of a neutral employer to refuse to perform services for his employer, services which are normally performed away from the primary picket line, its request was not pro- tected and constituted an unlawful inducement within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4}i)(B) of the Act." All the evi- dence in support of this argument is the following testimony by Vegessi: [MansmannJ asked me if I would help him stop the gypsies bringing in the freight. I guess, or going down there and picking up the the freight down at Stokvis. This ambiguous and uncertain testimony does not sup- port the General Counsel's argument. Accordingly. I find no unfair labor practice by reasons thereof. Respondent's concern about Perkins transporting Stokvis freight and its efforts to halt such traffic gave rise to two additional incidents which were litigated. On June 23, Wil- liam Stauffer, comptroller for Stokvis, and Feustel, a Stok- vis vice president, preceded, in their automobile, a Vancar truck operated by Bruce Edwards from Stokvis' premises to the Perkins terminal." The reason for doing this, according to Stauffer, was that: "(I) We were showing the gentleman where Perkins Trucking warehouse was: (2) There had been some incidents with truck[s] being followed, so we were just riding along with him; and (3) since it was an independent fellow driving. I went over with the paper work, the bills of lading and such, to hand over to Pcrkins." On this occasion, the Vancar truck a blue and white unmarked vehicle-was followed from Stokvis to the Per- kins terminal by an automobile which was being driven by Michael Rivezzo, a striking employee. who was accompa- nied by another striking employee, Mark Fiormonte. Rivez- zo testified that prior to June 23. Mansmann had instructed him to follow the particular truck the next time it appeared at Stokvis." Rivezzo did not actually trail the Vancar truck: he had heard that it was going to the Perkins terminal so he drove there directly and waited for the truck to arrive. When the Vancar truck reached the Perkins terminal, the driver had to come to a stop because of road construction 16 To overcome the shipping problems which developed when interstate carriers such as Perkins, Roadway, and IML failed to cross the picket line, the Company employed independent truckers, such as Vancar and G & G. to transport its freight to the terminals of the interstate carriers. i Mansmann testified that "loin occasions I had asked them to fllow trucks, as well as myself." Mansmann explained that he was interested in where unidentified vehicles leaving Stokvis' premises were going because the Respondent was concerned that unfinished work was being moved out of Slokvis for processing at other places and oncoming traffic. At this point, Rivezzo and Fiormonte left their automobile. went towards the driver, and began to wave their fists at him. According to Stauffer. whom I credit. Fiormonte, who was doing most of the talking. said, "They were going to kick his ass, they were going to wail for him and get him on the way out. And . . . ' oday is payday fior you.' " When the Vancar truck pulled in to the Perkins terminal. it was being followed by an automobile occupied by Rivezzo and Fiormonte because. according to Rivezzo, they wanted to observe what was being removed from the Vancar truck."" Rivezzo testified that he was ar- rested because of this incident and charged with harassment for calling Bruce Edwards obscene names, and that after Mansmann heard about the incident he was reprimanded by Mansmann who called him stupid and told him that he was not to talk to truckdrivers. but just to tollow them.' The General Counsel contends that this incident constitutes a violation of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. The Respon- dent. on the other hand, contends that the incident amounted to no more than name calling and "vocally vented resentment" and that the conduct of Rivezzo and Fiormonte cannot be attributed to the Union because "there is no evidence that Local 455 officials engaged in such activities or condoned them." I find no merit to this argument. Rivezzo and Fiormonte. who were pickets dur- ing the strike. were dispatched by Mansmann to follow the Vancar truck. Respondent is responsible for their activities while they were engaged in this mission even if theN ex- ceeded their instructions- particularly as their conduct on June 23 was consistent with the Union's purpose of discour- aging truckdrivers from crossing the picket line at the Stok- vis premises. Also, contrary to Respondent, the statements made to Edwards were more than verbal imprecations. They were clear threats to cause Edwards physical injury for having crossed the Stokvis picket line. I find, therefore. that the June 23 incident constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(I)(A). Respondent is not relieved from responsibility because after the event. Mansmann reprimanded Rivezz) for his conduct particularly as there was no public dis- avowal thereof. On August 2, Rivezzo and a group of 8 to 12 striking Stokvis employees, including the picket line captain, Rich- ard Salerno. went to the Perkins terminal, arriving about 7 a.m., and stationed themselves 5 to 10 feet from the north gate. According to the testimony of John Moore. the assist- ant shop steward for Local 807 at Perkins, two or three members of the group were holding signs, one of which had the word "strike" written on it. Moore was unable to read the sign fully or to read the other signs. He further testified '8 Rivezzu's version of what happened differs somewhat from Stauffer's. Rlvezzo testified that "we cussed [Bruce Edwards] out a bit and asked him why he crossed the picket line, and he said he was doing his job." Rivezzo further testified that he called Edwards an obscene name, but denied saying that he was going to kick his ass, that he was going to wait for him on the way out or that this was "payday" I do not credit these denials. Stauffer. whose testimony was given deliberately and thoughtfully, impressed me as being a more reliable witness than Rivezzo. whose recollection of the events about which he was questioned was less certain and whose testimony was given less carefully 19 Mansmann testified that he became upset when he heard about the incident because it was "a stupid thing" and "I told them not to do it again. not to have ans conversations with drivers, leave the talking to people to me." 345 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that, after introducing himself to the group and asking why they were there, he was told that they were individuals try- ing to gain information for their personal use and they wanted to know if Perkins was handling any Stokvis freight. Moore responded that he did not know. Moore then asked if they represented any union and was told that they did not, that they were trying to obtain the information for their personal use. Moore called to one of the men on the loading dock and asked if Perkins had transported any Stokvis freight recently. The man replied that no freight was carried during the last couple of weeks. The Stokvis striking employees left about 8 a.m. The General Counsel contends that this incident consti- tutes a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). Rivezzo testified that on August 2, "1 had a piece of paper stating that Perkins owned a blue and white Mac truck, and I wanted to speak to the foreman if this was to bring it to the attention of their union because it is illegal because they are a union shop...." Rivezzo's testimony makes it clear that the object of the striking Stokvis' employees visit to the Perkins terminal was to cause Perkins to cease transporting Stokvis freight and therefore was within the compass of subparagraph (B) of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii). However, there are substantial questions as to whether the conduct of the Stokvis strikers on August 2 constituted an unlawful appeal or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) and whether responsibility for their conduct can be attributed to the Union. There is no direct evidence that the group was authorized specifically to visit the Perkins termi- nal on August 2 and in their conversation with Moore, they sought to disassociate their activities from the Union. How- ever, what was done was done in furtherance of Respon- dent's strike purposes, was done by persons who served as pickets for Respondent, including the picket line captain, and the benefit of their actions was intended to inure to Respondent. In addition, what the group did on August 2 was of the same nature as other conduct engaged in by the Respondent during the Stokvis strike, such as picketing IML's terminal on June 12. 1 find, therefore, that the pres- ence of the group of the Stokvis striking employees outside Perkins' terminal with "strike" signs together with the con- versation they had with Moore constituted an unlawful ap- peal to refuse to handle Stokvis freight and therefore was a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B). However, there is no evi- dence that there was any interruption of business activity at Perkins during the I hour that the group was outside its terminal or that any official of Perkins became aware of their presence. Accordingly, I find that General Counsel did not prove that the incident constituted a violation of Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. D. The Roadway Express Incidents About 10:30 a.m. on May 12, a truck which was being driven by Kirk Anderson. Roadway's operations manager, and in which William McCarron, Roadway's office man- ager, was a passenger, was attempting to drive away from the Stokvis loading dock after having accepted a shipment of freight when pickets prevented its departure by station- ing themselves in the front and on both sides of the vehicle. It required several minutes for policemen who were at the scene to break up the congregation of pickets so that the truck was able to drive out. There were 10 pickets, includ- ing Schifano, involved in the incident. I find, as alleged in the complaint, that this incident constitutes a violation of Section 8(b)( )(A) because blocking an entrance or an exit even for a short period of time constitutes restraint and coercion within the meaning of the Act.20 Because the inci- dent occurred during normal business hours, it may be in- ferred that it was observed by Stokvis employees or that they heard about it. Therefore, even if McCarron and An- derson were not employees within the meaning of Section 2(3), a violation of 8(b)(1)(A), nevertheless, has been proven.2 1 When the Roadway truck left Stokvis, Schifano in- structed Mansmann to follow the vehicle. The truck, with Mansmann trailing, arrived at the Roadway terminal about 11:30 a.m. The terminal manager, Roger Seidel, who no- ticed Mansmann's automobile behind the truck, went into the terminal yard and engaged Mansmann in a conversa- tion. Mansmann asked to see the union steward and said that he would wait outside the gate for him. Seidel asked if' he could help. Mansmann answered that he wished to speak to the steward because he wanted Roadway to return the freight to Stokvis. Then, according to Seidel. "I said there is no way that I can take the freight back. He then told me that there was no way he was going to continue letting us pick up at Stokvis, it was struck goods and we shouldn't be handling it. I told him at that time that as far as I knew, the only freight that was on the truck was the only freight that Stokvis was going to give me and that we would not be going back.... Well, that seemed agreeable to him. He said he would go back and tell the people.... At that point he left." 22 The General Counsel contends that Mansmann's statement to Seidel "was a general threat of causing harm to Roadway's business, not necessarily at the primary picket line, if it continued to do business with Stok- vis. Therefore, it was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act." However, contrary to the General Counsel, I find the statements by Mansmann were too vague, uncertain, and ambiguous to constitute a threat within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act. Although Mansmann inferred that the Union would stop Roadway from picking up freight at Stokvis, the language used by Mansmann does not necessarily imply that the means the Union intended to employ would be unlawful. The Act does not interdict the use of strong language. What is prohibited are expressions of an intention to inflict injury or punishment, but not ex- pressions of purpose forcefully phrased. 2 Metal Polishers, Buffers. Platers and Helpers Internationcl Union Local No. 67 (A/4o-Cad Nickel Plating Cororration). 200 NLRB 335, 336 (1972). 21 N...R B v. Union Nacional de Trahajadores and its agent, 4rturo Grant, 540 F2d 1. 6 (Ist c(ir. 1976); Morris, the Developing Labor Law, p. 6 9 1971) 22 Mansmann denied that in his conversation with Seidel he asked Seidel to return the freight to Stokvis or said to Seidel that there was no way that he was going to let Roadway pick up freight at Sokvis. I do not credit these denials. In giving his testimony. Mansmann was delensive and tended to slant his testimony to make them harmonize more closely with Respondent's position in these proceedings. Seidel's testimony was brief, but was unim- peached. Moreover. it does not appear that Seidel has an) interest in the outcome of this proceeding or any material reason tfr assisting either party. I consider Seidel a more reliable witness than Mansmann. 346 SHOPMFN'S L.OCAL NION NO. 455 On September 5, Roadway's terminal was patrolled from 7:15 until 8:10 a.m. by four Stokvis pickets, i.e., Richard Salerno, the picket line captain. Michael Rivezzo, Thomas Kerkhoven, and Mark iormonte. who were carrying signs which read. "On Strike. ILocal 455." While the picketing was in progress. 35 Roadway drivers. who were scheduled to report for work at 8 a.m.. failed to do so and did not report until the picket line was withdrawn at 8:10 a.m. Re- spondent, in its brief' aruges that "Kenneth Mansmann tes- tified that he was unaware of said picketing, and that the Union had not been notified of its occurrence. Further- more, after the one incident of picketing at IML21 he had expressly instructed the Local 455 strikers that they were not to picket at other employer's plants. Under the circum- stances, Local 455 cannot be held liable for such picketing." I do not agree with this argument. Salerno was the picket line captain at Stokvis. Rivezzo and Fiormonte, in addition to picketing Stokvis' premises with other striking employ- ees, engaged in special missions upon the instructions of Mansmann, i.e., following trucks leaving Stokvis' premises. These three, in particular, on a day-to-day basis, were more active than other striking employees in supporting the ob- ject of the picketing which was, among other things, to dis- courage trucking companies and their employees from hauling Stokvis' freight. Where, as in this case. the Union established a picket line and assigns a representative to su- pervise the strike activities on an almost full-time basis, it is required to insure that the pickets will conduct themselves lawfully, not only at the site of the primary picket line, but also at other places where the Union reasonably can antici- pate the pickets might extend their strike activities. At those places pickets from time to time were assigned to follow trucks hauling freight from Stokvis. The reason was to iden- tify the carrier (as some trucks were unmarked or carried the name of a leasing company) in order that the Union might be able to halt such carriers from transporting any more Stokvis freight. The Union was responsible to insure that its pickets would not, on their own initiative. take ac- tion in furtherance of Respondent's picket line purposes. Thus, the fact that Mansmann did not direct the four strik- ing Stokvis employees to picket Roadway's terminal on September 5 and may even have instructed the Stokvis striking employees that they were not to picket at other employer's premises does not absolve the Union from re- sponsibility for the conduct of the four Stokvis pickets on September 5 (particularly since what they did was consis- tent with other action taken by Respondent, such as picket- ing the IML terminal on June 12 and making other direct approaches to carriers at their terminals to respect the Stok- vis picket line). I find that Respondent is responsible for the September 5 incident at the Roadway terminal and thereby has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. E. The IML Incident On June 12, approximately eight striking Stokvis employ- ees, led by Mansmann, picketed the IML terminal. Three or four pickets carried placards which read, "Employees of IML Strike Breakers." followed by the words, "On Strike" "J This occurred on June 12. and the name, Local 455, printed at the bottom. The picket- ing lasted from about 7:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m.. during which time IML's drivers, who are members of Teamsters Local 707, did not cross the picket line to report for work. About 11:15 a.m., Eugene Maney, terminal manager for IMI., sent for Mansmann. A meeting was held in Maney's office at which were present, in addition to Maney and Mansmann, the IMI. shop steward and Thomas Kerk- hoven. one of the pickets. Maney. whom I credit, testified. "I said we have taken a position at this point in time we are not going to cross the picket lines up at Stokvis ... Mans- mann's] response was to the effect, 'Well, that is good be- cause none of us need this.... ('an we have our word on this? Can we have your guaranteed word that this is going to be the story?' " Maney answered, "At this point in time that is the way it is going to be." The meeting ended then and Mansmann and the pickets left the IML terminal. In its brief, Respondent argues: "If the conduct was un- lawful, it was carried out by the Union in the possibly mis- taken but sincere belief that IMI. was an 'all?' of Stokxis. The conduct was de minimis and was not repeated. Accord- ingly, remedial relief is inappropriate here, and this allega- tion should he dismissed." The evidence in the record does not support the assertion that IMI. at any relevant time was an ally of Stokvis. Furthermore, the picketing of the IML terminal on June 12 was not de ,inints. It continued for approximately 4 hours and was discontinued only after IMI. assured the Union that it would capitulate to the Union's demands and would not cross the picket line at Stokvis.!' As Respondent had no labor dispute with IML and as an object of picketing it was to force IML to cease handling and transporting products of Stokvis and to cease doing business with Stokvis; I find that by picketing Stok- vis' premises on June 12 Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. F. The G & G Incidents On May 26 at or about 12:30 p.m.. G & i president, John Groneman, who was operating one of its trucks, after picking up freight at Stokvis was followed in an automobile occupied by two pickets, Michael Rivezzo and Richard Sa- lerno, when he drove out of the premises." Groneman ulti- mately drove in to a parking lot in Bayshore, New York, where he stopped, as did the automobile that was trailing him. Groneman testified, "The occupant and the driver jumped out and started to approach the cab [of his truck]. . . Well. I happen to have a 12-gauge shotgun with me, which I proceeded] to bring up to the level of the window. And with that, they stopped. We proceeded to have a con- versation.... They said, 'Don't worry. We're not here to bust heads. The union will take care of that.'... . They said ' There is no requirement that picketing continue for an) specific period of time before it can be deemed unlawful within the meaning of Sec. 8(bX4) of the Act. See General Teanter, Warehouse and Dairy Employees Unron Local No. 120. etc (Read' :Mied Concrete, Inc.) 200 NLRB 253, 256 257 ( 1972): Local 945. Internatiional Brotherhood of Teamsters, ChaulTeur. Ware- housernen and Helper o.4 America (Ne'cuark Disposal Seruice. Inc.), 232 NLRB I (1977}. '5 Salerno testified that he and Rivezzo were directed by Mansmann to follow Groneman's truck. and that the) were instructed not to talk to the driver. but only to find out where the Stokvis freight was gioing. 347 DEC)(ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI) . . you're scabbing on us by crossing the line. That I'm hurting their cause.... I tried to explain to them, I'm not trying to hurt anybody's cause, I'm just trying to earn a living. That was more or less the general conversation which ended shortly after that." Both Rivezzo and Salerno denied having any conversation with Groneman on this oc- casion. They testified that when they got out of their auto- mobile and observed Groneman pointing a shotgun at them, they immediately got back into the car and left. I credit Salerno and Rivezz.o 6 and find no violations of the Act by reason of this incident. Groneman testified to another incident which occurred on June 16 at Stokvis' premises. According to Groneman, he was accompanied by his brother, and as he got out of the cab of his truck he heard "normal cat calling and words that were said. But along with that, [hel heard reference made to the fact that now they know who [he] was... and they were going to take care of [him]. and . . . get [his] wife. . . ." Also somebody called out, "You haven't learned your lesson yet." On the occasion in question there was considerable tur- bulence. Among other things, policemen placed handcuffs on Groneman. Groneman testified that in addition to the remarks quoted above, pickets screamed obscenities at him. Groneman's testimony did not identify any of the persons who called the alleged threats to him. Thus, it would be difficult to find witnesses to refute his testimony. On the other hand, Groneman's brother, who was with him, was not called as a corroborating witness. As I believe that Groneman was an unreliable witness, I do not credit his testimony concerning the events on June 16 and find that the General Counsel thereby did not prove a violation of the Act. G. Other Incidents The General Counsel adduced testimony through Scott Dukes, a nonstriking Stokvis employee, regarding occur- rences on May 9 and July 7 purporting to establish viola- tions of Section 8(b)(l)(A). In relevant part, the testimony of Dukes was controverted by witnesses called by Respon- dent. I believe that Dukes, who has a tendency to engage in offensive and provocative conduct, was an unreliable wit- ness, and I credit the denials by Respondent's witnesses that they had engaged in the offensive conduct testified to by Dukes. I therefore find that no violations of the Act have been proved by the uncorroborated testimony of Scott Dukes. Patrick Salerno and Robert Adams testified that as they were leaving work at or about 3:30 p.m. on either May II or 12 and came to a stop at the curb leading from Stokvis' premises into the street, Mansmann kicked the van which Adams was driving on the side behind the driver's door." Because there is no evidence that any damage was caused to the vehicle and because there is no evidence that the circumstances were such that the occupants of the van felt 2' I believe that Groneman is excitable, that he exaggerated what occurred to develop a more impressive story, and that his testimony is less reliable than the testimony of Rivezzo and Salerno. 27 Mansrhann denied having engaged in the described conduct. threatened, contrary to the General Counsel, I find that this incident does not prove a violation of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. Salerno and Adams further testified that on May 16 they drove together to work and while Adams was driving to the back of the Stokvis factory to park the van, one of the pickets, Gary Salamino, threw a piece of asphalt at the van and dented the back door on the passenger's side of the vehicle. I agree with Respondent that as there is no evi- dence that this incident was called to the attention of Mans- mann, who was then in charge of strike activity, and since there has been an absence of violence during the strike, Salamino's conduct which took place away from the picket line cannot be attributed to Respondent. I therefore find that this incident does not constitute a violation of Section 8(b)( )(A). Stephen Arato, a nonstriking Stokvis employee, testified that as he was leaving work at or about 3:30 p.m. on May II or 12, homas Kerkhoven called out to him, "Stevie, I am going to f- you up."2 C(ontrary to the General Coun- sel, I find that this remark is not a threat. The evidence does not indicate that the circumstances under which the remark was made were such that a reasonable person would fear that harm of some indefinite and unspecified nature would be inflicted upon him. I find that this incident does not constitute a violation of the Act. About II a.m. on June 15, a truck, which was being driven by Henry Johnson for Vancar, was delayed approxi- mately 5 minutes by the pickets as it was seeking to back into the Stokvis loading dock. This conduct by the pickets, which occurred in the presence of Mansmann, constitutes a violation of Section 8(b)( )(A) of the Act.2 Ill. THE EFFE(t OF1 IE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON (OMMER(CE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with Stokvis' operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com- merce. IV. TIE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la- bor practices in violation of Section 8(b)( )(A) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and that it take cer- tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The General Counsel contends that, because of the un- lawful conduct found to have been committed by Respon- dent in these proceedings and because of other violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) on the part of Respondent found by the i1 Kerkhoven denied making such a remark. I9 find no violation of the Act by reason of shouts by pickets to Johnson that he was going to lose his union book, and that he would never get another job. 348 SHOPMEN'S OCAI. UNION NO. 455 Board in two earlier cases. " ' a broad prohibitory order should be issued. "The Board has long held that a broad remedial order is appropriate whenever a proclivity to vio- late the Act is established, either by facts compelled by a particular case . . . or by prior Board Decision against the respondent at bar based upon similar unlawful conduct in the past."" I agree with the General Counsel in that Re- spondent has demonstrated a disposition to engage in mis- conduct to accomplish the objectives which it seeks. Unless appropriately restrained, it is to be anticipated from Re- spondent's conduct in the past that in the future it will engage in the same or similar violations of the Act. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommended Order herein is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from engaging in conduct which in any manner re- strains or coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in these cases, I make the following: CON(CUSIONS OF LAW I. The Respondent, Shopmen's Local Union 455, Inter- national Association of Bridge Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL CIO. is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp. is an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act. 3. By reason of its unlawful activities described above. Respondent has engaged in violations of Section 8(b)(l)(A) and Section 8(b)4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu- sions of law, and the entire record in these proceedings, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER32 The Respondent, Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, Inter- national Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental ° General Iron Corp., 224 NLRB 1180 (1976); Independent Association of Steel Fabricators. Inc., e al.. 231 NLRB 264 (1977). I1 Local Union No. 69, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFI.-CIO (Wind Heating Company, Inc.), 209 NLRB 875, fn.2 (1974). 12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the 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. Iron Workers, AFL CIO, New York. New York. its offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing employees of Stokvis, Road- way, Vancar, or any other employer b preventing or im- peding such employees from entering o,r leaving the prem- ises of Stokvis or by threatening to inflict bodily injury or other harm upon any such employee. (hb In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. (c) Engaging in, inducing. or encouraging any individual employed by Perkins Trucking ('o., Inc.. Roadway Express, Inc., IML Freight, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, and from threatening, coercing, or restraining the above-named employers or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or require the above-named employers or any other such person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp. or to cease doing business with Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in Respondent's business offices and meeting halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 3 Copies of this notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respon- dent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respon- dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 29 signed copies of said notice for posting by Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp., Perkins Trucking Co., Inc., Roadway Express, Inc., IML Freight, Inc., and Vancar Motor Lines, Inc., or any of them, if said companies are willing to post such notices, at places where notices to their respective employees custom- arily are posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 33 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board 349