Industrial Union of Marine, Etc. Locals 5 & 90

412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent has not unlawfully refused to bargain in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO and its Locals No. 5 and 90 and American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO and its Local No. 151 and Bethlehem Steel Company. Cases Nos. 1-CB-635 and 1-CB-636. February 17, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On August 23, 1960, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Industrial Un- ion of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The other Respondents filed neither exceptions nor briefs herein. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO and its Locals No. 5 and 90, and American Federation of Technical Engi- neers, AFL-CIO and its Local No. 151, their officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from restraining and coercing the employees of Bethlehem Steel Company at its Quincy, Massachusetts, yard, in 130 NLRB No. 39. INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 413 the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, by barring ingress or egress to employees, supervisors, or managerial personnel through mass obstructive picketing, physical force, assaults, threats of violence, and the imposition of restrictions and limitations, or by like or related conduct. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in their business offices, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by a responsible official of each Respondent, be posted by the Respond- ents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the First Region signed copies of the notice, for posting, the Company willing, for a period of 60 days, on its bulletin boards in the yard or buildings in Quincy, Massachusetts, where notices to its Quincy employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. 1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INDUSTRIAL TJNION OF MARINE AND SHIP- BUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO AND ITS LOCALS No. 5 AND 90, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO AND ITS LOCAL No. 151, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY AT ITS QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS, YARD Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that : WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Bethlehem Steel Company at its Quincy, Massachusetts, yard, in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, by barring ingress or egress to employees, supervisors, or managerial personnel through mass obstructive picketing, physical force, assaults, and threats 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of violence, and the imposition of restrictions and limitations, or by like or related conduct. INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated-- -------------- By------------------------------------- (Title of Officer) LOCAL No. 5, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------=------------------------ (Title of Officer) LocAL No. 90, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Title of Officer) AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated--- ------------- By------------------------------------- (Title of Officer) LOCAL No. 151, Labor Organization. Dated--- ------------- By------------------------------------- (Title of Officer) 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 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by Bethlehem Steel Company , herein called Bethlehem or the Charging Party or .the Company, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued his consolidated complaint , dated March 25, 1960, against Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO and its Locals Nos. 5 and 90, and upon American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO and its Local No. 151, herein respectively called IUMSWA, Local 5 and Local 90, AFTE, and Local 151, and collectively called the Respondents . With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that : ( 1) Respondents picketed and caused to be picketed the gates and entrances to Bethlehem 's Quincy yard so as to bar egress and ingress to supervisors and employees ; (2) Local 5 and Local 151 assaulted an employee ; and (3 ) by the foregoing conduct Respondents restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of their statutory rights and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 81(b)(1)(A ) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. In their duly filed answers , each Respondent admits the commerce allegations of the complaint and its status as a labor organization but denies all unfair labor prac- tice allegations. Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held before Louis Libbin, the duly desig- nated Trial Examiner, at various intervals during the period from May 12 to Jane 15, 1960, at Boston, Massachusetts. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 415 witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument at the close of the hearing, and thereafter to file briefs as well as proposed findings of fact and con- clusions of law. On August 2, 1960, the Charging Party filed a brief which I have fully considered. Upon the entire record I in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY Bethlehem, a Delaware corporation, maintains a principal office and place of business in Quincy, Massachusetts, herein called the Quincy yard, where it is engaged in the construction and repair of ships and the manufacture of certain products. During the past year, Bethlehem has purchased materials for the building and repair of its ships, valued in excess of $1,000,000, which materials were shipped to it from points outside the Commovealth of Massachusetts. Upon the above-admitted facts, I find that Bethlehem is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, H. THE RESPONDENTS t The complaint alleges, the Respondeeta- admit, tk - record shows, and I find that Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbul uI Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called IUMSWA; its L „als Nos. 5 and 90, herein called Local 5 and Local `90; American Federation of Technical ,Engineers AFL-CIO, herein called AFTE; and its Local No. 151, herein called i".cal 151, ar ea h labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction As previously noted , there are five Respondents in this case : Local 5 ; Local 90; their International, IUMSWA; Local 151 ; and its International, AFTE. Bethlehem employed at its Quincy yard between 12,000 to 13 ,000 people. Until July 31, 1959, there were collective-bargaining agreements in effect between Bethlehem and IUMSWA, including Locals 5 and 90, covering Quincy yard employees . There was also a collective-bargaining agreement in effect until September . 30, 1959, between Local 151 of AFTE and Bethlehem , covering Quincy yard employees. Local 5 .represented about 6 ,500 production and maintenance hourly paid employees; Local 90 represented about 1 ,200 office clerical and technical salaried employees; and Local 151 represented about 832 draftsmen. As a result of failure to arrive at terms for new collective-bargaining agreements , the members of all three locals went out on strike in January 1960; Local 5 on January 23, Local 90 on January 24, and Local 151 on January 25. This strike was still in effect as of the time of the hearing in this proceeding. B. The issues The principal entrances and gates to Bethlehem 's Quincy yard are the Hill Avenuo gate, Howard Street gate, main gate, South Street gate , Washington Street gate, and the main office building entrance . The Company's administration building is located across the street from the main office building. Picket lines were maintained at these entrances and buildings throughout the course of the strike . The issues in this case are (1 ) whether the picketing was carried on in such manner as to prevent physically company personnel and employees from ingress and egress , and whether one person was physically assaulted, (2) whether such conduct , if it occurred, constituted restraint and coercion of employees within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, and (3 ) which, if any, of the Respondents were liable for such conduct. C. Principal events relied on by the General Counsel and the Charging Party as being unlawful The principal strike leaders at the Quincy yard were the following: For Local 5-Robert J. Kehoe, president; Ronald Orcutt , vice president; James McGonigal, executive secretary; Paul McVey, secretary and member of negotiating lI hereby note and correct the following inconsequential but obvious typographical errors in the typewritten transcript of the testimony : On page 130, line 23, "January 27" is corrected to read "January 25"; on page 158, line 8, "January 25" is corrected to read 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD committee; James Smith, trustee and picket captain; William Caruso, shop steward; and Joseph Duffy, picket captain. For Local 90-Arthur Fitzgerald, president and member of negotiating commit- tee; J. Wilfred Shelley, vice president and member of negotiating committee; Charles Johnston, treasurer; and James Kilroy, trustee. For Local 151-Richard Nash, president and member of Local negotiating com- mittee; James D. Hutchinson, recording secretary and member of negotiating com- mittee; William E. Rotch, secretary and member of negotiating committee; and Robert Nash, chief steward and chief picket captain. The foregoing were also members of the strike committee for the purpose of helping to make the strike more effective. The factual findings in this section are lased primarily on evidence and credited testimony which is undisputed.2 Only Respondent Local 151 called any witnesses to testify in its behalf, and that was President Richard Nash. The incidents, herein- after set forth, occurred during the period from January, 23 to March 23, 1960. 1. Chronological description of picket line incidents a. January 23-at main office building On January 23, Samuel Wakeman , the general manager of the Quincy yard, made two attempts to gain eritrarrct tt the main--pi"iice building. The first attempt was made about 10 a in. As the approiru the building , about seven pickets, who were picketing in front of the door in a notating fashion, hied up across the front of the door. Wakeman identified himsel stated that he had an office in that building, and asked permission to enter. ,14rte?, was informed by the pickets that "no one gets in here." With his hands in his i'iockets, w"Leman then unsuccessfully attempted to shoulder his way through the seve.__"icke• whose bodies were packed close together. When he tried to move around the picket line both in a northerly and southerly direction, the picket line shifted in the same direction and remained between him and the glass doors. Wakeman thereupon returned to the administration building, which was across the street. About an hour later, Wakeman returned with his associate , Mr. Budd who also had an office in the building. By that time the picket line had grown to about 25 to 30 pickets, circulating in front of the building with signs stating "Local 5 on Strike." As the two men approached the line, the pickets stopped circulating and massed in front of the glass doors . Wakeman again introduced himself and his associate and stated that they wanted to enter the building where they had offices and responsi- bilities to perform . They were again informed that "no one will get through here." At Wakeman's request, about eight policemen formed a wedge in between the massed bodies of the pickets , and Wakeman and Budd were pushed through the pickets and projected through the glass doors into the building, while the pickets were yelling "don't let them in." But sustained a laceration to his leg. b. January 25-at the main office building About 8:30 a.m., Wakeman and 7 of his associates approached the main office building where about 100 pickets stopped rotating and massed in front of the glass doors, booing and yelling "don't let them in." Wakeman saw Robert Kehoe, presi- dent of Local 5, among the pickets, and identified himself and requested permission for him and his associates to enter the building where they had business to perform. Kehoe asked, "Sam, will you sign a contract with us?" Wakeman replied, "No, I can't sign a contract with you." Whereupon Kehoe stated that Wakeman could get in "but no one else." At Wakeman's request, the police captain of the Quincy police force and seven patrolmen tried to part the massed pickets with their hands and arms to clear an area for the men to enter. The pickets pushed the police back into the middle of the street. The police captain then told Wakeman that they could not get them through. Wakeman then crossed the street to the administration building where Local 151 was maintaining a picket line of about 15 or 16 pickets. As he attempted to pass between the rotating picket line and a bank near the sidewalk, one of the circulating pickets stepped out of the line and banged him in the ribs with his elbow. Wakeman continued completely around the line into the street where he told Richard Nash, president of Local 151, that one of his pickets had lammed Wakeman in the ribs. Nash replied that "some of our people are new." Wakeman then passed around the 2 Material conflicts in testimony will be indicated when they occur. INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 417 same picket line again to enter the administration building and was jammed a second time in the ribs by the same picket. c. January 26-at the main office building and main gate About 8:30 a.m., Wakeman and seven associates again made an effort to enter the main office building. About 40 to 50 pickets, who had been circulating in front of the door, massed their bodies in tight packed formation in front of the glass doors. Wakeman identified himself, stated that the men with him were nonstrikers with offices and responsibilities inside the building, and asked the pickets to pass them through. Kehoe, president of Local 5, who was also with his group, stated, "No, we will not pass your group through." Wakeman then asked Police Captain Wuerth to gain entrance for him and his associates. Wuerth and seven patrolmen tried to penetrate through the massed pickets but were unable to create a space for the men to get into the building. There was a lot of shoving and pushing by the pickets who kept yelling, "Don't let them in." Captain Weurth then told Wakeman that he could not gain access for them. About an hour later, Wakeman and seven other management representatives at- tempted to gain entrance into the Quincy yard through the main gate. Between 60 to, 80 pickets were circulating in front of the main gate. As the management group. approached the gate, the picket line was supplemented by pickets who came from the west side of East Howard Street in response to the urgings of McGonigal, executive secretary of Local 5, who was calling through a megaphone for "Local 5 boys [to] come get in the line." The pickets stopped rotating and stood in front of the manage- ment group. Wakeman identified himself and his group to Jim Smith, picket captain of Local 5, and asked to be passed through because they had offices and responsibili- ties in the yard. Smith replied, "You don't get through here." Wakeman then made the same request of Kehoe, who was standing close to him. Kehoe, president of Local 5, stated that Wakeman could go in "but no one else." After a request for police assistance, seven policemen, under Captain Wuerth, attempted to force an opening of the massed group of stationary pickets who were yelling "don't let them in." The management group and the police were pushed back into the street; whereupon, Captain Weurth told Wakeman that the police could not get them in. d. January 27-at the main office building Milton J. Rogers, a company chauffeur, drove up to the main office building to. deliver the mail which he had picked up at the Quincy post office. There were about 10 to 12 pickets at the main office building. Among them was Charles Johnston, treasurer of Local 90. As Rogers got out of the car to remove the mail, Johnston came over and said, "No, you are not going to take the mail in today." Rogers replied that it was wrong to prevent him from going in with the mail. James Hutchin- son, recording secretary of Local 151, who was in the picket line and overheard' this conversation, went to the main gate and returned with Jimmy Smith, picket captain of Local 5. Smith then told Johnston not to "be a fool" and "don't ever stop the U.S. mail when Milt or the other drivers bring it in." Rogers was thereupon permitted to unload the mail and to deliver it to the mailroom in the main office- building. e. February 2-at all gates and main office building On this day, Ferguson R. Jansen, assistant manager of the Quincy yard, made the following six attempts to enter the yard, accompanied by management representatives: The first attempt was made at the main gate with 12 management representatives. When this group arrived at the gate, there were about 60 people in the picket line circulating around in front of the gate. Several pickets placed themselves directly in front of the management group. Among the group were Picket Captains Duffy and Smith and Vice President Orcutt, all of Local 5. Jansen identified himself and his group, stated that they all had business in the yard, and requested them to open the line or stand aside so that they could go through. Duffy stated that Jansen could go through "but the others cannot." The management group then attempted to push their way bodily through the massed pickets. Smith yelled out, "Shall we let them in?" There was a loud chorus of noes in reply. The entire management group was then bodily pushed back into the middle of the street. The same management group then proceeded to walk to the South Street gate, followed by 15 to 20 pickets from the main gate, who joined the picket line circulat- ing in front of the South Street gate, increasing the number of pickets there to about 50. Picket Captain McCall and Vice President Orcutt, both of Local 5, were in the- 597254 -a i-vol. 130-28 418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD group. Jansen made the same statement and request, and McCall refused to permit .the group to enter. The management group made a similar attempt to push their way through the massed pickets and were again pushed back into the middle of the street. The same management group then proceeded to the main office building, again followed by 15 to 20 pickets who joined the pickets circulating in front of the main ,office building, thus swelling their number to about 45. Vice President Orcutt of Local 5 identified himself as the picket captain in this group. Jansen made the same statement and request; Orcutt made the same reply, refusing to let the group through. With the aid of six or seven policemen, the group pushed the pickets to try to open up the line. Again the cry was raised, "Shall we let them in?" And the pickets .chorused back "Na." The management group as well as the police were pushed back again into the middle of the street. The same group then went to the Howard Street gate, again accompanied by .bout 15 to 20 pickets who joined the pickets at the Howard Street gate, thereby increasing the number to about 35. Before the management group arrived there, all pickets from Locals 90 and 151 were instructed by Picket Captain Smith of Local 5 to get out of the line and go across the street.3 Orcutt again identified him- self as picket captain and, in response to Jansen's similar statement and request, replied that Jansen could go in but "nobody else." The management group, again with the assistance of the police force, attempted to push their way through the massed pickets, but were in turn pushed back to the middle of the street. About a half-hour later, Jansen and another group of six management representa- tives proceeded to the Hill Avenue gate. The group was again followed by pickets and strikers who joined the pickets at the Hill Avenue gate. Orcutt again identified himself as picket captain and again stated that Jansen could go in "but the others cannot." McGonigal, executive secretary of Local 5, ordered the line to open up for Jansen. A passage way opened up in the middle of the picket line through which Jansen proceeded with six associates. When Jansen was almost all the way through, the line closed up behind him, barring those with him from coming through. They were unsuccessful in their effort to open up the line again, although they pushed and shoved for several minutes. The same management group then proceeded to the Washington Street gate, ac- 'companied by Orcutt, Smith, and other pickets. The same requests were made and the same answers were given by Orcutt. Again the line closed up after making a passage way for Jansen, and kept his associates from going through although they straggled physically to open the line. While they were struggling in this manner to open up the line, Picket Captain Smith stated to one of the management repre- sentatives, "You'd better look out or you'll get a punch in the nose." As the group walked back to the administration building, Orcutt stopped Jansen and said, "Well, if you keep this up, I don't know how much longer I'll be able to control our people." f. February 5-at the main office building On that day, Joseph J. Mullin, Respondent's industrial relations manager at the Quincy yard, accompanied by his associate and two attorneys, went to the main office building for the purpose of attending a meeting. A group of six or seven pickets from Local 151 were picketing at that time on the sidewalk in front of the main office building. The group went around the picket line to the entrance door. Gilmartin, one of the Local 151 pickets, had left the line and had jumped on the platform to the entrance door, stretched out his arms and prevented Mullin from opening the door to get into the building. Mullin stated that he had to get into the building in order to attend a meeting in which the men with him were to participate. Gilmartin replied, "You're not going to get in. No one will be going in." At that point General Manager Wakeman came along and was informed of the situation by Mullin. Wakeman stepped in front of Mullin, and told Gilmartin that he was the manager of the Quincy yard and that he had an office in the building and wanted to get in. Gilmartin then stated, "I guess you can get in, but nobody else can." When Mullin tried to follow Wakeman, Gilmartin closed the door. Mullin then told a policeman, who was standing nearby, that he desired to gain entrance to attend a meeting The policeman whistled for additional police. At that point, Joe Duffy, a picket captain of Local 5 stationed at the main gate, told Gilmartin that he would have to allow the group to enter. Gilmartin thereupon stepped aside, and. the group entered. _ .3 Apparently there were no pickets from Locals 90 and 151 in the line at that time. INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 419 g. February 29-relating to use of Cities Service property During the strike, the Company had set up a temporary office in an unoccupied building on the Cities Service property, which is contiguous to the Quincy yard. On the afternoon of February 29, Robert Nash, chief steward and chief picket captain of Local 151, appeared on the premises and asked Clarence H. Goldwaite, assistant manager of the technical department, what was going on. Goldwaite explained about the setting up of temporary offices. Nash replied that "we heard you were out here in order to go through the city service property into the shipyard to get anybody out you wanted to," and warned that "if anybody went through the city service gates, there would be bloodshed." About 4:30 that same afternoon, Glen D. Goode, an assistant superintendent of machinery, was assaulted on company property after leaving the Quincy yard where he bad been living and working since the commencement of the strike, under circum- stances hereinafter detailed. About 8:30 that night, Robert Nash spoke about the assault to Milton Rogers, a company chauffeur, on the front steps of the administra- tion building. Nash stated that he hoped the Company would not try to sneak any more men out of the yard the way they sneaked Goode out because if they did, "a great many more heads may be punched in." h. March 14-at main office building and main gate George R. Maclary, a mail clerk employed by the Company and also a member of Local 90, had occasion to go to the main office building about 8:10 that morning. About 11 men were picketing in front of the entrance to the building. Robert Nash, chief steward and chief picket captain of Local 151, was in the group, as was Parsons, a member of Local 151. As Maclary went up and showed his pass, Robert Nash said, "Sorry, you can't go in." Maclary stated, "Oh, you are kidding"; whereupon Nash retorted, "No, I am not kidding." Maclary did not enter and went back to the administration building across the street. About 10 minutes later, Maclary sought to enter through the main gate but was told by one of the pickets stationed there, "Sorry, Georgie, I won't let you in this way." Maclary went back again to the administration building. i. March 15-at main gate and main office building About 11:05 a.m., Donald F. MacNaught, the Company's assistant superintendent of drafting, accompanied by four associates who were department heads, went toward the picket line at the main gate. As the group approached the picket line, Jimmy Smith, picket captain of Local 5, called for the picket line to close rank. Other strikers crossed the street and joined the picket line which then totaled about 50 to 75 pickets. McNaught identified himself to Smith and requested entrance for him- self and the group to go through the main gate to the main office building. Smith replied that they could not enter through the main gate and that they would have to go to the main office building entrance. At that point Robert Nash, chief picket captain of Local 151, who was standing about 2 feet to the left and rear of Mac- Naught, spoke up and said, "No, you are not going into the main office building." MacNaught then spoke to Nash and requested entrance to the main office building. Nash replied, "You are not getting in." The management group thereupon returned to the administration building. About a half hour later, Richard Nash, president of Local 151, came to the ad- ministration building and spoke to MacNaught in the lobby. Nash expressed regret over the incident related in the preceding paragraph, indicated a willingness to get the group in to the main office building, but stated that since the group had been denied entrance by Local 5 be was concerned about Local 5 usurping his picket line if he let the entire group of five through at one time. Nash stated that he did not want to take the chance when it was not necessary and proposed to get two men in with MacNaught and, when the two came out, he would get two more in. Mac- Naught agreed to discuss this proposal with his people. About 10 minutes later, MacNaught and his group approached the main office building. About 10 or 12 pickets were present. MacNaught told Richard Nash that he wanted to go into the main office building with his entire group and that they all had to be there together because they wanted to assemble some information for a meeting to be held the following morning. Nash's reply indicated that he would have to get approval from the other unions to let them all in at once; he also stated that a picket would have to accompany each man into the building and that he needed additional time to con- sider MacNaught's request. MacNaught thereupon went back to the administration 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD building. MacNaught returned about 20 minutes later and asked Richard Nash if he had come to any decision about their entrance into the building. Nash stated that he was sorry but that he could not grant them entrance into the building.4 About 11:30 a.m. that same day, Superintendent Warren B. Nott approached the main office building where there was a picket line of about 18 pickets. He was stopped by a group of pickets and asked if he had a pass. When he replied in the negative, he was told that he could not get in through that entrance. As previously noted, members of Local 151 were picketing at the main office building during that period. j. March 16-at the main office building About 2:45 p.m. MacNaught returned to the main office building with four of his. associates. About 10 to 15 men were in the picket line at the time. Among them were Robert Nash, chief picket captain of Local 151, Hutchinson, recording secre- tary of Local 151, and Parsons, a member of Local 151. MacNaught asked Nash if he would honor their previous request for entrance into the main office building. Nash replied that he would not. MacNaught then stated that Richard Nash had told him the preceding day that two of them might be permitted into the building, and asked, "Could two of us go in today?" Robert Nash replied, "No, only one." Whenk MacNaught designated Paulson, Nash questioned Paulson's position as part of management. MacNaught thereupon designated Tunburg. At that point Nash stated he would like to have about 10 minutes to discuss it with other people. The management group left the area and returned about 15 minutes later. Mac- Naught asked Robert Nash what decision he had reached. Nash asked, "How long do you want to go in?" MacNaught stated, "Well, until about 4:30." Nash then said, "You can all go in, but 5 pickets are going in too. I am going to be one of them." The management representatives thus entered the building after a picket had been assigned to accompany each one. Except for Tunburg, the management group left the building at 4:30 p.m., accompanied by their respective pickets. Tunburg did not leave until 4:42 p.m. k. March 17-at main office building and main gate About 8:50 a.m., Art$ur H. Hewson, chief electrical engineer at the Quincy yard, with five associates, approached the main office building where all of them had offices. As the group approached the building, the picket line, consisting of about 35 pickets, suddenly increased in number, with Robert Nash standing in front of the group. Hewson told Nash that the group had business to perform in the building and desired to gain entrance. Nash replied, "You are not going in." Hewson in- quired why they were not permitted to go in when others had been allowed to go in, the preceding day. Nash stated that the reason was that those who had been per- mitted to enter the previous day had not kept their word in that Tunburg did not leave the building until 4:40 after MacNaught had promised that they would be out by 4:30 p.m. Nash would not permit the group to enter, stating that that was his "final" word. Shortly thereafter, the same group, accompanied by Assistant Manager Jansen, returned to the main office building and was again denied entrance by Robert Nash for the same reason. Police Captain Weurth engaged in a conversation with Robert Nash and Richard Nash, president of Local 151. Orcutt, vice president of Local 5, kept asking members of the group if they really wanted to go in. Robert Nash then joined in to ask the same questions. Jansen stated that they all wanted to get in and that they had business inside. At that point, Richard Nash said, "Okay, open up, let 'em in." The double picket line, which was in the formation of a chain, opened up and the group proceeded in. Before the entire group had passed through, the line * The findings in this paragraph are based on a synthesis of the testimony of MacNaught and Richard Nash. MacNaught testified that when he was at the main office building, Nash stated that he would have to get approval from the other unions before letting them in. Nash testified that he did not recall making such a statement. He was then asked whether he denied making that statement , and testified , "In those words , yes, I do." However, in view of Nash's admitted fear that Local 5 would usurp his line if he per- mitted the entire group to enter at once, MacNaught's refusal to accept Nash's counter- proposal to permit the men to enter two at a time and MacNaught 's insistence upon the entire group of five being permitted to enter together, and his testimony that he did not make the statement "in those words," I believe and find that Nash made a statement- which indicated that he would have to get approval from the other unions INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 421 closed up again and engulfed the men in the middle of the chain formation. After considerable jostling and pushing and a threat by the police captain that he could arrest the pickets for assault and battery, Richard Nash again yelled to "open up" and "let 'em in." The line then opened again and the group entered the building. About 9:30 a.m., Assistant Superintendent Gardner, accompanied by five manage- ment representatives, went to the main gate entrance to the Quincy yard where their usual places of employment were located. About 90 to 100 pickets were walking around in a circle, completely blocking the entrance to the main gate. As the management group approached, pickets from the other side of the street ran out and joined the picket line; the pickets closed ranks and formed a human chain, blocking all entrances from one side of the gate to the other. Gardner told Picket Captain Smith of Local 5 that he and his group desired entrance. Smith stated that they could not enter and that if they tried)to get in "somebody probably would get hurt." When Gardner replied that they did not desire to force their way in but "wanted to gain legal entrance to go in and do the job" they were required to do in there, Smith stated that Gardner and his assistant foreman could go in "but the others could not." Gardner then appealed to Police Captain Weurth for assistance. Captain Weurth asked Smith if he would let the group through. Smith replied that he would not. Captain Weurth then told Gardner that he could not gain entrance for the group unless the picket captain ordered the line opened. At that point, Robert Kehoe and Orcutt, president and vice president of Local 5, and Robert Nash, chief picket captain of Local 151, approached the picket line. Gardner repeated his request, directing it this time to Kehoe, who replied that "Smith is in charge here." Only Gardner and his assistant foreman were then permitted to enter, and then only on condition that they stay there no more than 2 hours. About 10 a.m., Assistant Manager Jansen and a group of 5 management repre- sentatives approached the main gate where about 75 pickets were circulating. The pickets were walking two or three abreast, in a circular chain fashion. Jansen identified the group to Picket Captain Smith and requested that he open up the line to let them in. Smith refused. Jansen remonstrated that he understood one or two people were allowed in earlier in the day and wanted to know why he would not let this group in. Smith stated, "Well, we're not going to let anymore in today." Jansen then requested assistance from Police Captain Weurth, who stated that he did not have enough men to go through, to open up the line." Jansen then appealed to Smith to let one or two men in. Smith thereupon permitted two members of the group to go in, conditioning the stay of one of them to 2 or 3 hours. As the remain- ing group left the area, Smith commented to Jansen , "You know we do have peace- ful picketing here, all except when you people try to get through the line." About an hour later, Jansen and another group of five management representatives returned to the main gate to seek entrance to the yard. About 75 pickets were still slowly rotating in front of the gate. Smith and Orcutt were there. Smith denied Jansen's request for permission for the group to enter, stating that "no more can go in today." Jansen appealed to a police sergeant to open up the line. The sergeant replied that he did not have enough men to do it. The group then went back to the administrative building. 1. March 18-at main gate and main office building About 9:15 a.m., Jansen and a group of five management people approached the main gate to seek entrance There were about 200 men in the picket line there. As they were nearing the line, Vice President Orcutt of Local 5 came over and asked Jansen why he was attempting to get into the yard in view of a meeting between representatives of the Company and the Union called by the mayor of Quincy for that morning. Jansen replied that he was not aware of the meeting but that in any event the management people had a right to go into the yard. In response to Jansen's request for entrance, Smith replied, "No, nobody gets in today." The police sergeant was again unable to assist Jansen because he did not have enough men to get them in. As the group was walking back to the administration building, Smith caught up to them and said, "if you're going to try to get in here with the aid of the police, there's going to be a riot." About a half hour later, Jansen and a group of four management people from the drafting department made another attempt to enter the main office building. There were about 40 pickets on the line there at that time. Richard and Robert Nash, who placed themselves between the management group and the picket line, refused Jansen's request to open up the line for them to pass through. The police sergeant again was unable to assist the group, at Jansen's request, because he did not 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have enough men to open up the line. The management group then attempted to go around the line and to push their way through but were prevented from making any headway. None of the group was permitted to enter. in. March 23-at the main gate On that afternoon, Jansen and about 19 management people were able to make entry into the yard under the following circumstances: The picket line had increased from 25 to 28 pickets on the previous 2 days to about 200 on the picket line. There were also many more observers, both union and supervisory people, around The gate and across the street. The management group of 19 people came out of the back of the administration building and were accompanied by some of the union leaders as they walked across East Howard Street, single file, with Police Captain Weurth. Vice President Orcutt of Local 5 called through a megaphone to the mob, "Now, quiet down, be quiet, this is a group of 19 top management people and that's all, and this is the only group who will go in today, o let them through." About 75 policemen were standing nearby in the street. The only way for the management group to pass was to go around the picket line, between it and the hedge, and they "had to squeeze" their way through the pickets. As the group "squeezed" by, they were continually being kicked in the shins and jabbed in the ribs with elbows. Among the several thousand people in the immediate vicinity who were watching, vere both union and management people. 2. The incident involving Goode Glen D. Goode, an assistant superintendent of machinery, lived and worked in the Quincy yard from the beginning of the strike. On February 29, he left, the yard about 4.30 p.m., pursuant to a doctor's orders, by the main office building entrance, went through the picket line being maintained there, crossed the street, and entered the administration building. As he walked through the picket line, Parsons, a Local 151 member, hollered out twice, "Hey Goode, come back-I want to talk with you." Parsons then spoke to Robert Nash, chief picket captain of Local 151, who made a semicircular motion with his hands directed toward him, in the direction of the main gate. Picket Captains Duffy and Smith, Shop Steward Caruso, and Carney, all of Local 5, came up from the main gate and joined Robert Nash in the street. These five men then ran up the driveway between the hospital and the administration building. Goode had gone into the administration building and proceeded down the steps leading to the parking area opposite the street entrance. As he opened the door to step out, Carney pointed his finger at him and asked, "Is that the one?" Smith answered, "Yes, that's the . . . get him." When Goode heard that, he opened the door and started back into the administration building. Caruso and Duffv grabbed hold of Goode on the steps, one on either side of Goode, and while they were holding him, Carney hit Goode in the eye and on the nose, breaking his glasses. Smith and Nash were standing 4 or 5 feet away at the time. When Goode fell down, the men disappeared; all five were observed leaving the administration building and moving in the direction of the main gate. Robert Nash turned right and went over to the picket line that was in front of the main office building. That evening Nash told Rogers, a company chauffeur, that he hoped the Company would not try to sneak any more men out of the yard the way they sneaked Goode out because if they did, "a great many more heads may be punched in." All five men were tried in a State court proceeding for assault and battery upon Goode. Carney, Duffey, and Caruso were found guilty; Carney was sentenced to 3 months in the house of correction, and the other two were each fined $200. All three filed appeals which were still pending at the time of the hearing in this proceeding. 3. Concluding findings No detailed discussion is required to conclude from the above-found facts, as I do, that during the period from January 23, the beginning of the strike, through March 23, 1960, men in the Company's employ were barred from entering the main office building and the Quincy yard, at each gate and entrance to the yard, by pickets through the sheer force of massed numbers, as well as by physical force and threats of violence. I also find that Goode was assaulted as an example of what would happen if any other nonstrikers left the yard where they were living during the strike. A mere reading of the numerous incidents , hereinabove detailed , compels these findings . On many occasions the group seeking entrance to the yard was physically forced back and pushed into the streets by the pickets , who did not hesitate to resort INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 423 to "jabbing" the men in the ribs and kicking them in the shins when believed nec- essary to bar ingress. Police officers were powerless in their efforts to force entry through the massed pickets. Picket captains threatened that if the men continued to try to gain entrance to the yard, "somebody would probably get hurt," that they would "get a punch in the nose," "that there's going to be a riot," and that if the Company tried to sneak anymore men out of the yard, "there would be bloodshed" and a "great many more heads may be punched in." The wholesale incidents of misconduct, previously detailed, could not help but be known to other strikers and nonstrikers, many of whom were present when they occurred. Under the circum- stances, it was not necessary for those who may have desired to enter the yard through the picket lines to test the picket line in each instance; they were just as effectively barred as those who did in fact make an unsuccessful attempt to pass through the picket lines. Nor were the men anytheless barred in those few in- stances when they were permitted to enter only two at a time, or accompanied by a picket, or for limited periods of time. For they were lawfully entitled to the free and unrestricted access to and use of the Company's premises to perform their duties, without the imposition of any limitations or conditions. I conclude and find that all of the conduct described in section B, 2, supra, con- stitutes restraint and coercion. D. The legality of the conduct Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act proscribes restraint or coercion only against "em- ployees." Except for the conduct of Chief Picket Captain Robert Nash in prevent- ing Maclary, a mail clerk and member of Local 90, from going into the main office building on March 4, and in threatening employee Milton Rogers, a company chauffeur, on February 29, that if the Company tried to sneak more men out of the yard a "great many more heads may be punched in," and the conduct of Johnston, treasurer of Local 90, in temporarily refusing to let employee Rogers enter the main office building with the mail on February 27, the conduct hereinabove detailed was directed against supervisory 5 or management personnel who do not fall within the statutory definition of "employee." However, it is now well settled that restraint and coercion directed against supervisors and managerial personnel under circum- stances which became or were sure to become known to the Company's striking or nonstriking employees constitutes restraint and coercion of employees in the exer- cise of their statutory rights within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.6 This is the exact situation in the instant case. The picket line misconduct was well publicized and widely known by both strikers and nonstrikers, both of whom were observers in many instances. These widespread acts of misconduct, which formed a continuing pattern of denying free ingress and egress at every entrance gate and door to the Quincy yard, constituted a clear indication and warning to both strikers and nonstrikers that they too would be treated in a similar manner if they sought to exercise their rights to refrain from supporting the strike by attempt- ing to cross the picket line to go to work. The same reasoning also applies to the assault upon Goode, even if it be assumed that he was a supervisor. The assault was widely publicized in the local and metropolitan newspapers, as was also the trial of the five defendants in the State court proceeding. Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I find that the misconduct, hereinabove previously detailed, constituted the restraint and coercion of employees proscribed in Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. E. Liability for the conduct proscribed in Section 8(b) (1) (A) Restraint or coercion of employees in the exercise of their statutory rights consti- tutes a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act where such conduct is legally attributable to labor organizations or their agents. Each of the five Respondents is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The General Counsel con- tends that the acts of restraint or coercion were committed by agents of the Re- spondent Locals, that all five Respondents were engaged in a joint venture for the purpose of conducting an effective strike for a common objective, and that therefore all Respondents are jointly and severally liable for whatever unlawful acts were com- mitted by any one of them. 51 am assuming, without deciding, that Goode is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. 6 See, e g, International Woodworkers of America, et at (W T Smith Lumber Com- pany), 116 NLRB 507, 508; Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Ohio Con- solidated Telephone Company), 120 NLRB 684, 686 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. As to Locals 5, 90, and 151 I find, in accord with well-established principles,7 that the officers, stewards, and officially designated picket captains, who, as the previously related facts show, took an active part in the prosecution of the strike, are agents of their respective Locals which are therefore legally responsible for the acts of restraint or coercion com- mitted by or under the instigation 8 of these authorized agents. An examination of the incidents described in section B, 2, supra, makes it apparent that acts of re- straint and coercion were committed or instigated by agents of each Local, with Local 5 being the chief offender. Thus, I find that Local 5 is responsible for the acts of restraint and coercion which occurred on January 23, 25, and 26, on Febru- ary 2, and on March 14, 15, 17, 18, and 23; that Local 151 is responsible for the acts of restraint and coercion which occurred on January 25, on February 5 and 29, and on March 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18; and that Local 90 is responsible for the act ,of restraint and coercion committed by Treasurer Johnston on January 27, when he refused to permit employee Rogers to enter with the mail until dissuaded by Picket Captain Smith of Local 5. I further find that, in view of Chief Picket Captain Nash's participation in the events leading to and surrounding the assault upon Goode, both Local 151 and Local 5 are responsible for the act of restraint and coercion flowing from this assault. I therefore find that Local 5, Local 90, and Local 151 have each violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. Moreover, the preponderance of the evidence supports the General Counsel's posi- tion that all three Locals engaged in a joint venture, in pursuit of a common objec- tive by joining forces to make the strike more effective. This is borne out primarily by the following: 9 First of all, there was intermingled picketing by all three Locals. Thus, on Janu- ary 24, Locals 5 and 90 were intermingled. On January 25, the first day that all three Locals were on strike together, all three Locals picketed jointly in one continu- ous line, with common picket signs bearing the name of all five Respondents on the same sign. Thereafter, there were occurrences of intermingled picketing and visiting on the lines throughout the strike.io Locals 151 and 90, followed the acknowledged leadership of Local 5. On Janu- ary 25, the first day that all three Locals engaged in picketing activity at the same time, President Richard Nash of Local 151 appointed Chief Steward Robert Nash as chief picket captain of Local 151 and instructed Robert Nash to make arrange- ments with Picket Captain Smith of Local 5 for the assignment of a gate where 7 See, e g , International Woodworkers of America, et al. 116 NLRB 507, 523-524; International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, C 10. (Sunset Line and Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487, 1510-1511. 8 Where authorized union agents, by their misconduct, set an example for rank-and-file pickets, thereby instigating the similar type of misconduct engaged in by such pickets, the Union is equally liable for such latter misconduct which occurred even in the absence of the authorized agents. 9 The factual findings are based on evidence and credited testimony which is undisputed. 10 The following are some examples : On January 26, Gould of Local 90 was in a picket line made up mainly of Local 151 members. On several occasions in February, Shelley and Johnston, vice president and treasurer of Local 90, respectively, were in the main gate picket line with Local 5 pickets. On March 7, Picket Captain Smith of Local 5 was picketing at the main office building with Chief Picket Captain Nash and Parsons of Local 151. Among those in the picket line at the entrance to the main office building on March 14 were Prior, Chief Picket Captain Nash and Parsons, all of Local 151, and Picket Captain Smith of Local 5 On March 17, President Kehoe, Vice President Orcutt, and Picket Captains Smith and Duffy, all of Local 5, were present at the main office build- ing picket line when a management group was denied entrance by President Richard Nash of Local 151. On that day, Picket Captain Nash of Local 151 was present at the main gate picket line when a management group was denied entrance by Picket Captain Smith of Local 5 On March 18, when a management representative was denied entrance to the main office building, Shoo Steward Caruso, Picket Captain Smith, Vice President Orcutt, and Carney, all of Local 5, and President Richard Nash, Chief Picket Captain Robert Nash, and Yoerger, all of Local 151, were present. On March 21, Richard and Robert Nash and Secretary Hutchinson, all of Local 151, Treasurer Johnston and Dan Clark, of Local 90, and Duffy, Smith, and Carney of Local 5, were at the main gate picket line while some of them were "yammering" at the nonstrikers leaving the yard at the end of the day On March 22, Treasurer Johnston of Local 90, Carney and Duffy of Local 5, and Chief Picket Captain Nash of Local 151, were in the main office building picket line as the supervisory personnel were leaving their work for the day INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 425 Local 151 could picket. As a result of such a conference between the two picket captains, Local 151 thereafter picketed at the Howard Street gate and at the main office building. On March 15, when MacNaught, a management representative, sought permission from President Richard Nash for a management group to enter the main office building, Nash indicated he would have to get clearance from the other unions to permit the entire group to enter all at once, because of his concern that Local 5 might usurp his picket line if he acceded to MacNaught's request. He believed, however, that if he arranged to have only two men enter at one time, it would not put him in a bad position with Local 5. On January 27, when Treasurer Johnston of Local 90, stopped employee Rogers from entering the main office building with the mail, Secretary Hutchinson of Local 151, who was in the picket line at the time, went to the main gate and came back with Local 5 Picket Captain Smith. Johnston then complied with Smith's instructions to permit Rogers to enter with the mail. On February 2, when a management group was approaching the Howard Street gate, Local 5 Picket Captain Smith ordered Local 90 and 151 pickets to leave the line. On February 5, when Gilmartin, a local 151 picket, barred entrance to a group of management representatives to the main office building, he complied with the request of Picket Captain Duffy of Local 5 to permit the group to enter. When deemed necessary, joint meetings were held by all three Locals. The first joint meeting was held at the union hall of Local 5, on January 16, before the com- mencement of the strike. Officers of all three Locals were present for the purpose of discussing common problems. They agreed to the distribution of a "flyer" over the names of the official boards of the three Locals. The "flyer" stated that at this meeting the official boards of the three Locals passed a resolution that unless the Company were to bargain in good faith at a forthcoming meeting, John J. Grogan, the International president of IUMSWA, would call a strike at 12:01, January 25; it also stated that a joint telegram had been sent to the Senators and Congressmen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by the official boards of all three Locals, re- questing an investigation of the Company. Another joint meeting, attended by offi- cers and some picket captains of the three Locals, was held on March 23, at the Quincy police station. This meeting was held with company representatives and counsel to discuss management's complaint that employees were prevented from entering the yard by mass picketing. After some discussion about the presence of counsel of the respective parties, Company Repiesentative Mullin met and discussed the situation with President Kehoe of Local 5, President Nash of Local 151, and Treasurer Johnston of Local 90. During this discussion Kehoe suggested that a meeting be called at union headquarters of all three Locals. Later that day Presi- dents Kehoe and Nash told Mullin that the situation was such that they could not do anything about it. In addition to the common publications which were issued in the form of "flyers" and telegrams, as previously mentioned, uniform passes were provided by the Locals for the use of those whom they had agreed to pass through the picket lines. This pass was in the form of a IUMSWA 1959 membership card, on the reverse side of which appeared the name of "Jim Smith," the picket captain of Local 5. Although the record shows that such a pass was not in general use, employee Maclary, a mail clerk, always showed his pass when seeking entrance and Superintendent Nott was refused admission to the main office building by Local 151 pickets because he did not have a pass. Upon consideration of the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, I am con- vinced and find, in agreement with the General Counsel and the Charging Party, that all three Locals engaged in a joint venture which rendered them all jointly and severally liable for all unlawful conduct hereinabove found.il T therefore find that, regardless of which Locals affirmatively engaged in the specific violations herein found, Local 5, Local 90, and Local 151 have violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by all the conduct herein found to be proscribed by that section. 2. As to Internationals IUMSWA and AFTE 12 a. I UMSWA IUMSWA was the certified bargaining representative for the units represented by Locals 5 and 90, and International representatives participated in the negotiations for u See, e.g., International Woodworkers of America, et at., 116 NLRB 507; International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, Inc, etc. (Chicago Calumet Steve dorinq Co., Inc.), 125 NLRB 113 12 The factual findings in this section are based on evidence and credited testimony which is not disputed. 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a new contract covering these units. The strike called by Locals 5 and 90 was authorized 13 and ratified by the International. Robert Kehoe, president of Local 5, was also a member of the International 's general executive board . Kehoe was in the picket line on January 25, when Locals 5, 90, and 151 were intermingled. On that occasion, when Manager Wakeman asked Kehoe for permission for him and his associates to enter the main office building where they had business to perform, Kehoe asked Wakeman, "Sam, will you sign a contract with us?" When Wakeman replied that he could not sign a contract, Kehoe stated that Wakeman could get in "but no one else." International representatives visited the picket lines, consulted with officers of Locals 5 and 90, and spoke to the strikers. Andrew A. Pettis, vice president of the International, visited the picket line at the Howard Street gate on March 2. In a "flyer" distributed on the picket lines on March 7, over the name of John J. Grogan, president of the International, it was stated that on "March 2 and 3, your National officers were in Quincy, visiting our Locals 5 and 90 . . . we not only consulted with the Local's officers and visited at the Local's headquarters, but went out on the picket line and spoke to our striking brothers and sisters. We found that the spirit and determination of our striking brothers and sisters were at an all-time high, and that in this area also the strike machinery was working extremely efficiently." In "The Shipbuilder," the official organ of IUMSWA, it is reported in the March 1960 issue that: Marching with the Quincy pickets . Grogan and Vice President Andrew A. Pettis huddled with enthusiastic strikers grouped around fires and in shelters, and took part in man-to-man talks to bring them up to date on developments and to answer their numerous questions. In an article appearing in "The Shipbuilder" of April 30, it is stated that: . the indestructible pillars of IUMSWA picket lines and the idomitable [sic] spirit of the eighteen thousand Bethlehem Steel Company strikers battling against rapacious management who seek to serve their own selfish and base ends continued militant and invincible. And in a continuation of this article on another page, President Grogan is quoted as saying that I will urge our Local Unions whose members are on strike at your shipyards to return to work immediately upon your taking the aforesaid actions... . The International made arrangements with Blue Cross and Blue Shield to con- tinue in effect all the benefits of the Company's program for striking employees who were not on layoff status when the strike began. In addition, the International sought to make arrangements with Blue Cross and Blue Shield for the postponement of the payment of the premiums by the striking employees. b. AFTE AFFE authorized and ratified the strike called by its Local 151. International President Ralph Stevens was present at the collective-bargaining negotiations held on January 24, immediately preceding the calling of the strike by Local 151. At that meeting, Stevens explained to the Company's representatives what his experiences had been in other negotiations. Stevens participated in the long continuous picket line on January 25, carrying a sign which stated "On Strike, Local 151, AFL-CIO." He also visited the picket line about a week or two before the hearing in this proceeding. Myles W. Holmes, an International representative, was at the picket line on January 25 and on other occasions thereafter. Other International representatives who visited the picket line in March were Nutzell and Coughlin. During the course of the strike, Richard Nash, president of Local 151, conferred with these International representatives. During the hearing in this proceeding, International President Stevens told Mullin, a company representative, that if he had any complaints about the picketing activities of any of his Local Unions, Stevens would like to have Mullin bring it to his attention. Local 151 received financial assistance from the International; payments for gaso- line and other expenses incurred were made to the members beginning about 8 weeks after the commencement of the strike. In addition, moneys which originated from 18 See International's constitution, sections 1, 6, and 12(a) of article III, and section 18(a) of article IV. INDUSTRIAL RAYON CORPORATION 427 other Internationals passed through AFTE which cleared the money down to Richard Nash for Local 151. Concluding Findings It is significant that, although represented by able counsel throughout the hearing, no witnesses were called for IUMSWA and AFTE. Upon consideration of the fore- going and the entire record as a whole, I find that, whether on the theory of joint venture, authorization, or ratification, Respondents IUMSWA and AFTE are equally responsible for the violations of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act committed by their affiliated Locals and their agents. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The cease-and-desist order herein recommended will be limited to the Bethlehem Steel Company and its Quincy yard, as the record does not disclose the likelihood of the commission of similar or other unfair labor practices by Respondents elsewhere.14 On the contrary, al- though Local 151 also conducted picketing at the Company's Hingham yard, about 5 miles from Quincy, there is no showing, claims, nor contention that any mis- conduct occurred at that location. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO and its Locals Nos. 5 and 90, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO and its Local No. 151, are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. The foregoing labor organizations have jointly and severally violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by committing through agents for whose conduct they are responsible the acts of restraint and coercion hereinabove related which interfered with the exercise of rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 14 See, e.g., N L R.B v. Local 476, United Assoe. of Journeymen a Appren. of Plumb- ing & Pipefitting Ind, etc. (E Turgeon Constr. Co., Inc.), 280 F. 2d 441 (C A. 1) ; .N.L.R B v Local 111, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc (Clemenzi Construction Co.), 278 F. 2d 823 (C.A. 1) ; Rickel Bros , Inc., 128 NLRB 448. Industrial Rayon Corporation and Gregory J. Cudzilo, Sr. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 600, AFL- CIO and Gregory J. Cudzilo, Sr. Cases Nos. 8-OA-2027 and 8-CB-4920. February 17, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On April 21,1960, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair 130 NLRB No. 53.