Local 761, Int'l Union of Electrical, Radio, Etc.

LOCAL 761 , INT'L UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC 123 Union The General Counsel impeached the testimony of Katz who testified that Bighone had never asked for his job by having Katz admit that on March 26 he had stated in a prehearing written statement, "When the picketing was over he came down and tried to get his job back " When Katz was asked to explain that state- ment with his testimony, he answered that that was his way of explaining that Bighone did not come until the end of February, and the picketing had been over a month ago and everything was running smoothly Such explanation is, of course, no explanation Accordingly, I do not credit the testimony of Katz on the issue of whether Bighone asked for his job and having discredited him on that point I discredit him on the other material matters to which he testified Having discredited the testimony of Katz, I now turn to the testimony of Bighone to ascertain if it is sufficient to prove the allegations of the complaint His testimony to say the least is confusing on what it was that Katz said to him , assuming for the moment that he had a conversation with Katz on February 13, 1959 Because Bighone testified on direct examination that Katz said , "I want you to write a letter to the Union saying that you don't want to be union member no more" and then later within a matter of a few minutes , on cross-examination, testified that he did not so testify, grave doubts as to Bighone's reliability are had as to what actually was said in the conversation He then testified that Katz told him he was to write to the Union and have the Union write to Biglione saying he had left the Union, and later testified that Katz told him to have the Union write the letter to Katz In my opinion, such conflicting testimony on Bighone's part presents most serious doubts as to what if anything was said about Bighone's continued membership in the Union Upon appraisal of the entire testimony of Bighone, I have arrived at the conclusion that Bighone was not a reliable witness , and, accordingly, the General Counsel has failed to prove the allegat'ons of the complaint by the required pre- ponderance of reliable evidence I shall therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and on the entire record, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW i The Respondent, Jackson Maintenance Corporation, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 2 The Respondent, Jackson Maintenance Corporation , has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act [Recommendations omitted from publication ] Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and General Electric Company. Case No 9-CB-502 January 13, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On June 12,1959, Trial Examiner Thomas A Ricci issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint with respect thereto Thereafter, the Charging Party and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs 126 NLRB No 25 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board l 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 In- termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions, with the following additions. The Trial Examiner found various incidents which occurred during the course of the Respondent's strike against the Employer to have constituted activity violative of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. These incidents consisted of assaults on persons and property, and blocking, or impeding ingress and egress, by mass picketing and parading automobiles at plant entrances. The Trial Examiner found the Respondent responsible for these incidents. We adopt these find- ings. In addition to these incidents, which are fully detailed in the Intermediate Report, we find the following activities also to fall within the proscription of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act : (a) During the mass picketing, automobile license numbers of nonstriking employees were recorded by the pickets at the Respond- ent's instructions. At the same time threats were voiced by pickets that : "We will get you" and "We have your license number." The Trial Examiner found that the threats were violative of the Act but not the taking of the license numbers. We disagree with the latter conclusion. In the context of the threats and violence on the picket line it would have been reasonable for the nonstriking employees who were not cooperating with the strikers to have anticipated that the taking of the license numbers was for the purpose of identifying them for reprisals. We therefore find the recording of license num- bers under these circumstances to be coercive conduct proscribed by Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.2 (b) After the granting of the injunction on July 28, 1958, the pick- ets assigned to the gates placed concrete blocks, milk bottle crates, water buckets, lawn chairs, and other objects across the entrances to the gates in such a fashion as to force cars entering or leaving the plant to proceed "slowly and cautiously." The pickets at times sat on the objects. Sometimes they walked from one to the other or stood between them. The Trial Examiner found that this conduct did not violate the Act. We do not agree. This conduct, in our opinion, shows that the Respondent, having been frustrated in its effort to blockade the plant entrances completely by the State court injunction banning mass picketing, changed its tactics and resorted to other 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its power in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins] 2 Cf. Bakersfield Foods Co, Inc , 123 NLRB 1130, Tenn e.ssee Packers, Inc, 124 NLRB 1117. LOCAL 761, INT'L UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 125 means to accomplish its purpose. The use of automobile caravans and the conduct here in question, the use of obstacles to slow vehicles, were the alternatives employed. That these tactics may have been ineffective in restraining nonstriking employees from exercising their right to work if they so desired does not render the conduct any the less violative of the Act. We therefore find that by placing the ob- structions in the entrances to the gates the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.' (c) During the strike Shop Stewardess Mildred Walz telephoned a nonstriking employee, Myrtle Doyle, and told Doyle that she (Walz) was going to be on the picket line and asked Doyle whether she "was scared of getting my car damaged." The Trial Examiner found that the shop stewardess was not an agent of the Respondent and that the Respondent was therefore not responsible for the threat implicit in the stewardess' question. We disagree. As indicated in the Inter- mediate Report, stewards, according to the brochure, "The Grievance Procedure," published by District 7, IUE, AFL-CIO, a parent body of the Respondent, are regarded as "grass roots leaders" of the em- ployees and handle grievances at the first stage of the grievance pro- cedure and assist the chief steward in handling them at the second stage. Under the circumstances we find that the Respondent is re- sponsible for the activities of Mildred Walz and therefore violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.4 ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 761, Inter- national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Restraining and coercing employees of General Electric Com- pany by mass picketing of plant entrances; by rocking automobiles of employees and of other persons desiring to enter the plant; by damaging automobiles and other property of employees desiring to enter the plant; by inflicting personal injuries and otherwise molesting employees approaching the plant; by threatening employees or other persons with physical violence because of their desire to cross a picket line and to refrain from joining a strike; by parading automobiles or placing obstructions across plant entrances so as to impede or delay entry of any employees or other persons; and in any other manner 3 Cf Local No 1150, United Electrical, Radio and Machine lVorAers of America, et al. (Cory Corporation ), 84 NLRB 972, 976-977 4 Local No 1150, United Electrical, Radio and !Machine Workers of America, et al. (Cosy Corporation), 84 NLRB 972, 973 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at the offices and the meeting halls of the Respondent copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by official representatives of the Respondent labor organization, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent labor organization to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region for posting, General Electric Company willing, at all locations where notices to the company's employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. 6In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS, OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND AGENTS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF GENERAL ELECTRIC 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 engage in mass picketing of entrances of the Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky, plant of General Electric Company. WE WILL NOT rock automobiles of employees or of other persons desiring to enter the plant. WE WILL NOT damage automobiles or other property of em- ployees desiring to enter the plant. WE WILL NOT threaten employees or other persons with physical violence because of their desire to cross a picket line or to refrain from joining a strike. WE WILL NOT parade automobiles or place obstructions across plant entrances so as to impede or delay entry of any employees or other persons. LOCAL 761, INT'L UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 127 WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of General Electric Company in the exercise of their rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act, as amended, including the right to refrain from any or all concerted activities as guaranteed by the Act. LOCAL 761 , INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. 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. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER A charge having been filed by General Electric Company, Appliance and Tele- vision Receiver Division, herein called the Company, against Local 761, Interna- tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent and the Union, the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce with- in the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of the unfair labor practices. A hearing on the complaint was held on April 1 through 9, 1959, at Louisville, Kentucky, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present oral argument, and thereafter to file briefs. Briefs were received from the Respondent and the Charging Party. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY General Electric Company is a New York corporation engaged in the manu- facture, sale, and distribution of major electrical household appliances at its Ap- pliance Park plant near Louisville, Kentucky. During the past 12 months, a period representative of all times material herein, it sold and shipped from its Appliance Park plant products valued at more than $1,000,000, to points outside the State of Kentucky. I find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Setting Local 761, IUE, has for some years been the recognized collective-bargaining representative of all hourly paid (essentially production and maintenance) em- ployees at Appliance Park. This is a plant of the Company covering over 1,000 acres of land, which has 13 buildings and employs upwards of 11,000 persons. Of these, about 7,400 are covered by the collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. There is no union-security provision in the contract; about 6,300 employees are members of the local. The vast majority of employees reach the plant , situated 10 miles from the center of Louisville, by private automobile; two 65-acre parking lots inside the company property accommodate them. They use five gateway entrances-some four carlanes wide, others somewhat less broad. 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On Sunday, July 27, 1958 , the Union called a strike, economic in nature, over a dispute arising from certain grievances unspecified in the record . It placed pickets at every gate that evening and kept pickets at all entrances continuously through August 11, when the strike was settled. The charge arose over assertions by the Company, reiterated in the complaint, that certain picket line activities by the Union or its agents, or inspired, approved, or ratified by its agents , forcibly denied access to the plant to employees wishing to enter, inflicted bodily harm upon their persons and physical damage to their property , threatened them with further injury, and thereby coerced the employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, all in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A ) thereof. The Evidence To prove the conduct complained of and the Union 's responsibility for it, the General Counsel called 28 witnesses , including Johnson, the president of Local 761, as an adverse witness. Their recitation of incidents occurring at or near gates to the plant, or participation by umon officers, strike captains, and shop stewards, and of the conditions which prevailed there at the critical times, is largely supported by objective evidence in the form of photographs and moving picture films. In defense, the Respondent called only President Johnson to deny that he or the Union had directed or in any way authorized or approved any unlawful or improper conduct by any of its agents. Thus the substance of the testimony is entirely uncon- tradicted and presents no conflict. Apart from the substantial corroboration which pictures and films afford in many instances , there is a consistent pattern revealed in the stories of all the witnesses . Their recitals therefore compliment one another. Accordingly, while ignoring a few minor obvious lapses of memory-of themselves of no significant importance against the clear total picture, and in the absence of any substantial reason for rejecting any of the factual testimony offered-I credit the witnesses who testified . The facts will be clear-what the alleged union agents said, what they joined in doing, and what they stood by, saw, and seemingly approved. The only question to be resolved is who were the agents of the Union and for what part of the activities shown must the Respondent be held accountable under the language of Section 8(b) (1) (A). Coercive Activity, the Union's Participation, and Its Responsibility In keeping with its constitution, the overall affairs of the Union are run by nine officers-a president , two vice presidents , a financial secretary, a recording secretary, three trustees, and a sergeant at arms-elected by the membership at large, and eight officers-called chief stewards (sometimes referred to as department stew- ards)-also elected by employee members working in the eight major subdivisions of the Company's operations for hourly paid workmen. There are also a larger number-about 275-of shop stewards , elected as needed from time to time by smaller groups of employees, usually coextensive with the supervisory span of a company foreman. When the Union decided to strike late Sunday , on July 27, President Johnson, with other officers and with the chief stewards , conferred at the union hall respecting methods for picketing the plant and other matters relating to the strike . Together they decided upon a number of instructions to be issued to all pickets as guides in their conduct and on the number of pickets to be used at each gate. It was also decided to designate specific strike captains and assistant strike captains. For the start of the strike, and until such time as strike captains should be selected, the program was that the chief stewards would be in charge of all picketing activities, and would place four pickets at each of nine separate locations (only five gates being then in use ) around the plant. Makeshift picket signs were used at the moment. The next morning Johnson drew up a written statement of instructions for the pickets and had many copies run off. He also prepared a list of strike captains and strike captain assistants. The picket instructions were distributed to pickets at the plant and posted in the union hall at about 9 o'clock Monday morning The strike captain system was also instituted at about that time. The arrangement was that one strike captain with his assistants should be in overall charge of all picketing at all gates for a 4-hour period and that successive 4-hour shifts, each with a strike captain team, would remain in effect around the clock for the duration of the strike. At the time of the strike, the Company ran two regular production shifts, the first from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., and the second from 3 to 11 p.m. There was also a night shift from 11 p.m. to 7 a in , with few employees at work. Immediately after the strike started on Sunday night and with the appearance of the first four pickets LOCAL 761, INT'L UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 129^ at each gate, other persons began to gather at the entrances. By about 6 in the morning, large crowds of people were at the gates, along the streets adjacent to the plant, and in many areas close to the plant. As usual, most of them arrived in automobiles, which parked along both sides of the roads leading to the gates and created a general traffic problem. The principal gates used by the employees, and therefore the broadest entrances to the company property, were gates Nos. 2, 3, and 5. At these locations the crowds were variously estimated by the witnesses, some speaking of only 50 or 60, others in the hundreds and some estimating the crowds at upwards of 1,000, with perhaps 500 or 600, at certain times, at one single gate. Some employees were unable to enter the plant Sunday night because groups of people, some of them carrying picket signs, crowded in front of their cars and prevented their entry. On Monday morning, beginning about 6 o'clock, there were lines of people, 3, 4, and 5 feet deep, standing clear across the entranceways to the various gates. Gates Nos. 2 and 5, wide enough to permit entry of three or four cars abreast, were totally blocked by milling people, with sign-carrying pickets in their midst A great number of automobiles attempted to push through these crowds, were unable to do so, and turned away. The plant protection employees of the Company stood inside the company property observing what was happening; they made no effort to step outside into the public domain to compel openings in the crowd. County police, however, were called; they patrolled the total area and in many instances stood at the entranceways. When, in some instances, arriving employees called to the counfy police for assistance, the latter ordered the people to make way, and then openings were made in the massed crowds and some auto- mobiles gained entrance. This condition prevailed generally at the various gates throughout the morning and towards noon Pickets kept urging arriving employees not to enter the plant; there was much yelling, including a certain amount of obscene language, aimed at persuading employees not to work. In a number of instances, as shown on the record, persons carrying picket signs stood in front of the automobiles while others seized the cars and rocked them violently. A considerable number of wit- nesses testified to having seen such violent rocking of automobiles at the various gates on a number of occasions, and the motion picture films clearly support their testimony. A number of automobiles which persisted in edging their way through the crowds, or entered through openings made by the county police, were scratched along the side by metal or stone objects in the hands of pickets. Thomas, a police- man, saw cars being scratched as they entered. Jones, a police lieutenant, arrested a man who scratched another automobile with a beer can opener after the officer had forced the pickets to make way for it. Employee Stewart saw Marvin Morris, a shop steward, streak the entire length of a car with a piece of metal or stone he held in his hand Johnson, a lawyer employed by the Company, was threatened with fists in the crowd. The car window of another employee was smashed as he forced his way through the line at gate No. 3. At 7:55 a m. a female employee (Campbell) and her husband were manhandled at gate No. 2 by the pickets as they entered one of the gates, and their car fenders damaged. The pickets rocked employee Giuferia's car violently as she arrived, shouted to her to stay out, and one of them hurled a rock at her as she passed. About 2 p in. that first day of the strike the company obtained an injunction in the State Circuit Court of Jefferson County, restraining the Union from any mass. picketing or blocking of the entrances, any violence, and any picketing of the plant except with three pickets at each of the gates. Union officers quickly appeared at the plant at about 3 o'clock, copies of the injunction order were posted at the entrances, and all pickets were removed except the permitted three In a short time the crowds dispersed. Officers of the Union participated in the activities described above. As already stated, the testimony of the witnesses is credible and proves the facts. When Shuster, a company foreman, arrived at gate No. 5 about 10.30 Sunday evening, he found 20 to 25 persons blocking the entrance. One man was carrying a picket sign and in the group were Leonard Wood and Joe Jones, both shop stewards. Jones asked where he was going and when Shuster replied "to work," said "we are asking you not to go to work." At that point another man said loudly, "We are telling you not to enter." Unable to enter, Shuster turned away. He went to gate No. 2 where he found 30 to 35 men strung across the entrance Among these was Frank Crain, one of the chief stewards, Hall, another shop steward, and at least one person carrying a picket sign. Crain said, ". . . we are asking you not to enter."' Shuster persisted and asked Hall, ". . . what are you going to do if I attempt to, 554461-60-vol 126 10 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD enter?" Hall asked Crain what should he do , and another person then spoke up "pull the son-of-a-bitch out of there." Again Shuster backed away and left. He finally entered the plant at 6 a.m. at gate No. 2, with the police opening a lane for him through the crowd blocking that entrance. Employee Jeunesse also tried to enter the plant Sunday evening. Only gates Nos. 2 and 5 were open that night and at each Jeunesse was met by massed pickets who rushed in front of the taxicab he was in and prevented its entry . Pickets called out "you can't come in" and "these sons-of-bitches are coming through the gates." He finally abandoned the taxicab and walked into the property across a ditch some distance away from any of the gates. Gatton, a plant protection lieutenant, was stationed near gates Nos. 2 and 3 from 6 a.m. to noon . He saw 400 to 425 people massed across the entranceways; he saw people rocking automobiles attempting to enter , calling out obscene language to them. Roving through this crowd were Milby, one of the chief stewards , Secuskie, a vice president of the Union, and Kopey, one of the trustee officers. Stewart, an employee, observed what was going on at gate No. 2 on Monday morning for several hours beginning about 7 o'clock. He too saw Milby and Secuskie moving about the group that blocked the entrance. Milby walked up and down in front of the line. When the county police asked that the pickets step aside to permit a persistent car to enter, Milby directed the pickets to make an opening in the line in order that the car might proceed. Brohman, a professional photographer , saw Milby walk up and down the road in front of gate No. 2; he saw him motion to people standing across the road from the gate and urging them to cross and stand in front of the gate itself . There is a photograph corroborating this testimony . Also speaking to the employees at this moment appears Secuskie, the vice president. Among the photograph exhibits introduced by the General Counsel is 'one taken by Brohman ,at one of the gates that morning (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 27). It shows a double line of men standing shoulder to shoulder clear across one of the gates, with a picket holding an "on strike" sign in the line, and Chief Steward Milby and Vice President Secuskie anchoring each end. Hardesty, a strike captain, admitted having been with a group and standing by at gate No. 3 while the people were rocking and otherwise manhandling automobiles of employees attempting to enter the gates. There is also direct proof of many other shop stewards being present at various points of the picket line while these events were occurring . Don Williams, another strike captain, was photographed at one of the gates in the center of a closely knit group of men and standing directly in front of a car seeking entrance to the plant ; he is immediately flanked right and left by pickets carrying IUE strike signs. Keiter, a plant protection lieutenant, saw Mel Smathers , a shop steward , directing a group of employees when there was a crowd of 300 to 350 in front of gate No. S early Monday morning. Smathers walked up and down the picket line while cars were being rocked . He was heard to say, as automobiles attempted to make their way through the line, "stop that car, don't let him in." Shop Steward Ebbie Brock appears in several photographs clearly directing ac- tivities of another shoulder -to-shoulder line of men strung across gate No. 3 during that morning. The line is several men deep and picket signs are in evidence. At about the same time, and still as part of that blocking line , he was also photographed twice standing immediately in front of an automobile trying to go through . Kopey, the IUE trustee, stood several feet away on the line and watched . Gloor, another shop steward, was arrested for breach of the peace at gate No. 5 about noon. Despite the direct participation of its highest officers in this activity , the Re- spondent attempts to evade liability for it on the ground that there is no proof of direct -instruction by the Union or by the president himself for such conduct. There is hardly need in this case for painstaking analysis and application of the various past decisions in which the Board applied the common law theory of agency in the administration of Section 8(b)(1)(A ) of this statute. The chief stewards, Vice President Secuskie , Trustee Kopey, and, of course, President Johnson, are agents of the Union because they are the direct persons through whom the Union conducts its affairs.' It was they who studied what techniques were to be followed in carrying on the picketing; it was they who took direct charge of all picketing at all gates from the moment the strike began on Sunday evening until about 9 o 'clock Monday morning, when picket captains were added to it; and it was they who appointed the ' Compare the Board's decision respecting the role of "committeemen" in Perry Norvell Company, 80 NLRB 225, 243. LOCAL 761, INT'L UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 131 -captains and designated the pickets with express authority to represent the Union on the picket lines . Johnson was present at gate No. 2 during the morning and his own observations unquestionably revealed to him the pattern of things as they were taking place. He testified he saw nothing wrong. Thus, so far as these high officers of the Union are concerned, it is not a question of whether they ratified or approved the misconduct of others-a conclusion, in other circumstances, to be reached inferentially by their knowledge of the events. They were the actors; this was their picket line run in their way. If it were necessary here to apply the rules of agency, the same conclusion must be reached. The strike captains, of course, having been designated by the Union for the very purpose of supervising the activities of the pickets, are agents of the Union within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A). It can hardly be questioned that the scope of their authority was to take care of the picketing activities. The Board has long held "a principal may be resonsible for the act of his agent within the scope of the agent's general authority or the `scope of his employment' if the agent is a servant, even though the principal has not specifically authorized or indeed may have specifically forbidden the act in question. It is enough if the principal actually empowered the agent to represent him in the general area within which the agent acted." 2 As to the many shop stewards, their agency status, so far as it is revealed by the evidence, does not appear to have placed them in a position of authority, areawise, respecting strike or picketing activities. Their authority as stewards stemmed from the Union's constitution which empowers them only to handle first stage grievances in the day-to-day employment of the members within the limited field of their shop sections.3 However, representatives of the Union they are. What better indication of how to conduct themselves could they have had than the example of the officers themselves and of the strike captains? Again, therefore, so far as the activities of shop stewards is concerned, no theory of passive acquiescence or ratification is required to hold the Union responsible. Rather must it be said that the direct conduct of the clear agents was a form of direction and instruction to all the shop stewards as to how they should conduct themselves. As their conduct comported with the pattern established by the union officers acting literally in concert with them, and was in many instances clearly unlawful and coercive of employee rights, the Union must be held responsible for it. Moreover, the Board has held that,a pattern on the picket line set by agents of the Union themselves, if followed by "individuals engaged in picketing activities, makes the Union responsible even for the misconduct of the pickets." 4 The Re- spondent is therefore directly responsible for the misconduct of the pickets, both those carrying IUE signs and those without. I see no occasion to consider here, and therefore do not adopt the further theory, urged by the Charging Party in its brief, that whenever a union places peaceful and well-behaved individual pickets at the gates of a large industrial plant like Appliance Park, it becomes prima facie re- sponsible for any mass blocking of entrances that employees, not otherwise directed or approved by the Union, might feel inspired to establish .5 As the record is a very long one, what with photographs and lengthy films of the events, I see no purpose in attempting to single out and list each and every unlawful act that occurred. It suffices that the type of misconduct which was violative of the statute be clearly understood. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing and on the entire record, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1) (A) of the Act by the conduct of its officers, strike captains, shop stewards, and a number of pickets in (1) mass picketing of plant entrances and thereby preventing entry of employees desiring to work and of other persons, (2) rocking automobiles of em- ployees and of other persons desiring to enter the plant, (3) damaging automobiles and other property of employees desiring to enter the plant, (4) inflicting personal injuries and otherwise molesting employees approaching the plant, and ( 5) threaten- 2International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, CIO (Sunset Line and Twine Company ), 79 NLRB 1487, 1509 3 The General Counsel argued that apart from all else that may appear in this record, the shop stewards must be deemed agents of the Respondent Union for purposes of con- ducting the strike because a brochure entitled "The Grievance Procedure" of District 7, IUE, AFL-CIO, calls such a steward "the grass roots leader of the people in the plant in their attempt to secure decent wages . . . I consider it unnecessary to decide this question in the circumstances of this case . See Chas. Weinstein Company, Inc., 123 NLRB 590 ( Shop Negotiating Committee Member Muir). * Fairmount Construction Company, 95 NLRB 969. 5 Chas Weinstein Company, Inc., supra, footnote 3. 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing employees or other persons with physical violence because of their desire to cross the picket line and to refrain from joining a strike.6 e One of the principal purposes of the State court injunction was to put a stop to. the mass picketing of the various gates so that employees desiring to enter could do so. On Monday evening Paul Falk, at the union hall, overheard Chief Steward Milby speak to several employees about organizing a caravan the following morning to block the gateways and, in this way, to prevent nonstrikers from going to work. On Tuesday morning, July 29, there were several such caravans, or parades of long lines of automobiles, slowly passing in front of various gates to the plant. The road which approaches gates Nos. 3 and 3A and gate No. 2 adjacent to the company property is a four-lane highway. Two witnesses, Carhart, a GE lawyer, and Craig, a commercial photographer, related that at about 7:30 that morning they saw two automobiles stopped abreast on the road a considerable distance away from the plant gates. Behind these two cars there formed two lines of automobiles per- haps 20 long. The front cars then proceeded at a rate of 5 to 8 miles per hour to pass along the road and in front of the plant gates. The same performance was repeated a second time about 30 minutes later. A photograph of the second incident,, taken by Craig and received in evidence, shows that one of the two front auto- mobiles was driven by the Local President Johnson. Johnson admitted the auto- mobile photographed as the first car shows himself driving. The same type of automobile caravan passed slowly in front of gate No. 5, at the other extremity of the plant property. This one, also consisting of a long line of cars, proceeded at a slow rate and went by every 15 minutes or so. The police pulled the lead car out of the line and made the remaining cars proceed at normal speed. One such double-line caravan that passed in front of gate No 2 in the early morn- ing had in one of its lead cars Cave Hardin, a strike captain. County Police Officer Cissel testified that he forced the first two cars off the road, gave summonses to. Hardin and another employee, and then the cars proceeded normally. Again, there were about 25 cars behind each of the lead ones. Union President Johnson denied that he drove slowly along the road that morn- ing for the purpose of obstructing entry to the gates, or that he consciously led any caravan. He admitted, however, having toured all the gates for inspection to see how things were going. In the light of the moving picture films which reveal that the caravan Johnson headed had nothing in front of it as it approached the gates and was moving at a very slow rate of speed, of the testimony of witnesses that the, performance was repeated at various gates, and of the evidence that the chief steward spoke of such a plan the night before, there can be no question that these caravans were organized by the Union for the purpose of effectively blocking the entrance and thereby evade the restraining effect of the State court order. I find, in view of the direct participation in the tactic by the union president himself and one of the strike captains, that this was an activity of the Union designed to prevent em- ployees from entering the gates. As such it was a form of physical blockade, deny- ing, or at least delaying, entry to employees, and in itself a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act by the Respondent. As explained above, some of the gates, especially gates Nos. 2 and 5, are between 40 and 50 feet across, permitting passage of as many as four cars abreast. They are no more than open areas, or broad roads, turning away from the public highways and leading into the company property. When the State court injunction took effect only three pickets were permitted at each gate. Beginning on Tuesday and continuing for a number of days during the strike, the pickets brought with them various objects, such as concrete blocks, milk bottle crates, water buckets, lawn chairs, traffic control tubes, and things of like kind but no larger. At times they placed these things on the entranceway leading into the plant, but so spaced that be- tween any two of them an automobile could enter unobstructed. The pickets at times sat on the objects. Sometimes they walked from one to the other or stood between them. The General Counsel contends that use of these objects, and their placement on the entering highways, was another form of physical obstruction of the entrances, and therefore a forceful blocking of employees desiring to come to work. The various witnesses who testified to this aspect of the case admitted that all cars de- siring to enter were able to do so, that the only consequence was to cause entering automobiles to proceed somewhat more slowly and cautiously. They also stated that not a single car failed to enter, or was in any way impeded from entering be- cause of the inanimate objects. "There was plenty of room," according to Keiter, a 6 Local No 1150, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, et al. (Cory Corporation), 84 NLRB 972, 975 LOCAL 761, INT'L UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 133 plant protection lieutenant. The witnesses also said that in those instances when pickets were standing between the objects, they always removed themselves as an automobile desiring to enter approached. It is quite clear that neither the presence of these objects in the roadways, nor the pickets' conduct in walking from one to another or standing between them, violated the State court injunction, which, among other things, proscribed any physical impediment to entrance by the public at large. The Company placed some of its employee lawyers at the various gates to observe the conduct of the pickets for the very purpose of insuring that the State court in- junction was not violated. There were no contempt proceedings initiated at all. An example of the situation created by the use of these blocks, or pails, or milk cases, appears in General Counsel's Exhibit No. 53, a photograph of three pickets sitting on such objects across the main entranceway of one of the gates. A police cruiser and motorcycle patrolmen are parked nearby. I think that across so broad an entrance to a struck plant, where a picket may stand he may sit, and when three of them must patrol 50 feet, they may walk across the entrance and need not stand at the extreme sides of such a "gate"-all provided there is no impediment to entry. In view of the physical layout of the gates, the Company's failure to assert at the time that the use of inanimate objects was violative of the court injunction or in any way blocked entrances, and the further fact that all persons and automobiles desiring to do so were able to enter, I find no support for an unfair labor practice finding in this aspect of the case? This unduly long record is burdened with detailed testimony relating to many particular incidents occurring on the picket line. Much of it tells of activities by persons who were not identified either by name, or as representatives or agents of the Union. Some of the incidents involve persons who are named, but as to whose alleged status as agents for whose activities the Respondent should be held accounta- ble, the record presents a serious question. Thus, as to Durbin, there is indirect indication that he may have been informally designated, or himself assumed strike captain status during the strike. The activities of such named and unnamed persons in all instances are of the type which occurred, as shown otherwise in the record, either in the presence of the chief stewards or of President Johnson, or with direct participation by the clear agents of the Respondent, or as part of the pattern of activities which the chief stewards established. A detailed recitation here of this mass of evidence relating to repetitive and cumulative incidents, and any painstaking resolution of close questions of agency that would arise, would add nothing of substance to this report. The type of activity in which these persons engaged appear- ing as having been committed by the clear agents, or with their direct approval and planning, the cease and desist order running against the Respondent will forbid any repetition of such conduct by the Union or its agents in the future I see no purpose therefore in belaboring this report with unimportant repetitive details. Throughout the entire record there appear only two incidents of misconduct away from the picket line areas. A shop stewardess, Mildred Walz, telephoned an em- ployee's home during the strike to urge she cease work, and asked was not the employee afraid of having her car damaged. Donald Elder, one of the pickets. followed an employee named Cowan, who was on his way home and did not join in the strike, and told him "it was better to go hungry than to get hurt." Asked was this a threat, Elder replied, "they hired people out of town to do that kind of work." I believe the record evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the Union was responsible for either of these individual threats. There is nothing to indicate that the authority conferred upon either the pickets or the shop stewards extended to action at all away from the company premises. The "general area" for which the pickets were designated was necessarily the picketing area. And the shop stewards, none of whom was assigned to any activities in connection with the strike, became agents for the Union-if they did at all-only by virtue of the example set by the officers and chief stewards at the picket line. Whatever the real agents for the Union may have done, there is no evidence whatsoever that any one of them extended their picketing or strike activities away from Appliance Park The threats made by Walz and Elder therefore appear as only personal misbehavior on their individual part, not attributable to the Respondent on this record.8 To establish Elder's status as a union agent, the General Counsel proved that one day during the strike Elder and about 25 other strikers entered the plant property in their cars and walked into the lobby of one of the buildings. They were seeking to obtain vacation checks normally paid them at that time. Elder asked the men did 7 Perry Norvell Company, 80 NLRB 225, 242 slrwin-Lyons Lumber Company (National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, et al ), 87 NLRB 54. 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD they desire he speak on behalf of all and he did . Apparently, the Company had decided to defer vacations for the time being , and told Elder for the employees that no checks would then be delivered . Elder was very persistent and kept holding up a slip he claimed evidenced a vacation payment to another employee. The time spent in this hassle took somewhere between 30 and 40 minutes . At one point, to stress his determination, Elder sat on the floor and said he would not leave until the checks were delivered. Some of the employees sat on chairs to convey their own resolve. Plant protection employees were present and county policemen were called to the premises. The upshot of the incident was that Elder and his colleagues were persuaded to leave and were escorted out of the company property by the police. The General Counsel expressly disclaimed any contention that Elder 's activities in leading the employees to the plant and insisting upon receiving vacation checks amounted to an unfair labor practice chargeable to the Union . Disagreeing, counsel for the Charging Party asks for a specific finding that the incident was an 8 (b) (1) (A) violation by the Respondent . Because the General Counsel is primarily in charge of the prosecution of these proceedings and the Charging Party may not add sub- stantive allegations to the complaint, and because IT agree with the General Counsel that the total incident, even assuming that Elder was an agent of the Respondent, does not prove any coercion of employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), I make no unfair labor practice finding in connection with this incident. One specific allegation of the complaint warrants comment. Paragraph 7(b)III charges that action by pickets in recording the license plate numbers of nonstrikers and telling them the numbers were being taken for identification purposes was un- lawful. The Union admits it instructed its people to take down license numbers, and adds its purpose was to communicate with the owners and persuade them to assist the Union in its strike objectives by honoring the picket line. License num- bers were taken, and in some instances the drivers were aware of the fact. Some pickets, unidentified, were heard to say, as automobiles went through the picket line: "They will get you"; "We will get you"; "We have your license number." The General Counsel unequivocally stated on the record it was not his contention that taking down license numbers of itself is violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. He argued only that in this case, "the method" used made it unlawful, and "when coupled with threats" such conduct is coercive . This being his contention, it could no more be held that the taking of license numbers is per se unlawful than all picketing could be outlawed because in a given instance or two it was accompanied by violence . What was coercive here were the threats voiced while automobile plate numbers were being recorded . These were but some threats , among others, for which, because of its direction and control of the strike techniques , the Union must be held responsible even though the identity of the pickets involved was not established . Accordingly, I shall make no unfair labor practice finding based upon paragraph 7(b)III of the complaint. As stated above, the Respondent defends on the ground that there is no direct proof that either the president or the first vice president of the Union expressly authorized or ratified the misconduct proved. This defense is without merit because officers and agents of the Union themselves engaged in the conduct , encouraged it in their presence, and participated by being themselves part of the picket lines which blocked the entrances . However, the Respondent also defends strongly on the further ground that the strike as a whole must be considered a peaceful one, and that what incidents of improper behavior did occur should be disregarded as trivial and de minimis. Were the issue of this case whether or not this strike, from a birdseye view, should be called violent, or comparatively quiet, I think I would agree with counsel for the Respondent . Certainly, where in a plant of 11,000 workers about 6,500 go on strike the first day, and almost as many on each of 9 successive workdays, the appearance of as many as 1,000 persons about the gates at the start of the strike , and even a certain amount of rowdyism and roughhouse while others seek to gain entrance, cannot of itself be called an extraordinary thing. I am also not unmindful of the fact that despite the lengthy record, and the pains- taking efforts that were made to prove many detailed events, much of the testimony belabors the same incidents . A number of summonses were issued by the police, and some people were arrested ; as to convictions it was shown only that some fines were paid for summonses . I also note that there were no attempts to bring con- tempt proceedings under the State court injunction . Moreover, while a great number of photographs and twelve 100-foot films were received in evidence most of the scenes depicted reveal no misconduct or misbehaviour at all. And the very photographers who took the pictures candidly admitted that although they spent hours on the scene at the height of the picketing, they otherwise saw nothing unusual to photo- DITTO, INCORPORATED 135 graph. The police captain characterized the strike on the whole as a fairly peace- ful one. Notwithstanding this total picture I cannot agree with counsel for the Respondent that what misconduct was proved attributable to the Union should be ignored on a de minimis ground . Clearly, the Union and its agents engaged in conduct pro- scribed by Section 8 (b)(1) (A), and found unlawful , again and again, by the Board with approval of the courts . I will accordingly make the same findings as have been previously made in consequence of this type of union activity , and recommend the standard remedial order. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con- nection 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 tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 761, International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By restraining and coercing the employees of General Electric Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Ditto, Incorporated and Chicago Printing Pressmen Union No. 3, Franklin Union No. 4, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America , AFL-CIO and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Bookbinders Local No. 8, Bindery Women's Union No. 30 and Bindery and Specialty Workers Union Local No. 182, AFL-CIO and Local 4, Amalgamated In- dustrial Production Sales and Jewelry Workers Union, Inter- national Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO,' Petitioners. Cases Nos. 13-RC-6685, 13-RC-6686, and 13-RC-6687. Janu- ary 13, 1960 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Robert G. Mayberry, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and hereby affirmed. 'The name of the Petitioner in Case No . 13-RC-6687 appears as amended at the hearing 426 NLRB No. 18.