United Automoblie, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers

DECISIONS OF NAI IONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im- plement Workers of America, UAW, and its IA)cal Union No. 552 and Delavan Corporation. Cases 18 C13 823 and 18 C('B 843 November 17, 1978 DECISION ANI) ORI)ER BY MIMBI: RS JI NKINS. Mt RPIIY. ANI) TRI I SDAI 1: On June 28, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Rich- ard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisiont; of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and conclusions of the Adminisi ative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Or 'er,2 as modified herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondents, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im- plement Workers of America, UAW, and its Local Union No. 552, their officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall take the action set forth in the said recom- mended Order, as so modified: I. Substitute the following for paragraph 1: "The Respondents, United Automobile, Aero- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica, UAW, and its Local Union No. 552, their offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall: "I. Cease and desist from: "(a) Assaulting and physically injuring employees, throwing objects at employees and vehicles, threaten- ing bodily harm and property damage, damaging ve- hicles and company property, spreading nails on driveways and approaches to driveways, and engag- ing in mass picketing, blocking, preventing, and at- tempting to prevent ingress to or egress from the plant of Delavan Corporation. "(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing any employee in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. Reipondeints h;lae excepted ti certain tredihil r, fildings made hb the ,'dniiniltra,te li .u Judge It is the Board's estabhished porlic) nol to ver lrle Lri Adlrinslrlit:. I.,, i.lude',s resolutions '.ith respect t, credlhillh' uinlRs. the tleir prrepondelrllce of all .f the rlev\ilnt esidetlce c,nvilne.s us that the ei,olutins ire incoriect Srta,hird Dri laIll Pr,dti I, In.. 91 NiRB s44 (1950). enfd 188 1 .2d 362 (3d ( ir 1951) We huie c.arefulls cxilmnned the record and find it, hbasis for reersing his findings Ihe dtic liimlratlve I iat Judge included in his notice a broad provision Ieilllrlllg the Respondents to cease and desist rrum in any other manner rerstrallilg i, coercng enplplcs in the exercise ,of rights guaranteed theti in Sec 7 of the Act. hut he inad ertentl} omitted this prolslon front hi, reconmmended Order. Such a; prolision is appropriate in view ,of the serious and extensive nature of the infrair practices omitted ouer i1 long period of timnte .4Aalag, iotlcd ,featr ( ulte(r nd Lutll her HorA.men If ,'rth .4Arler, a. and I l.,, l 222 tlo* BIef Pr,,(esors. ln, . 233 NI.RB 839 (1977): I.oeal 24&,J Ieu & A llied Fid rf I rrs e affilirated itrh .4A nalgainael d leatr ( ulierr and Blul ltc he li orrien if N'ot,,h .4Amen, ,1r . .4l ( 10 (MilwaueUAl, Independent 'uerat Pa, A, A vsociatlronl) 222 N.RB 1023 (1976). Memher i ruesdale does nl agree that a broad cease-and-desist provision is .arrantetd sith respect to Respondent Internat,,nal in the circumstances here in which its represenltatie ,<as present during oni' I da, of the miscon- duct and there is no evidence indicating that officials of Respondent Inter- nalltlonlll ot ltr-ise particlpalted in. ratified. or condoned the misconduct APPENDIX Nobll'E To MEMsBERS Pos-rED BY ORDER OF T HtE NAHIIONAL LABOR REL AiIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which all parties had the opportu- nity to present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated the law, and we have been ordered to post this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following: WE wiiL. NO! restrain or coerce the employees of Delavan Corporation by physical assaults upon employees, by damaging vehicles and property, by blocking, preventing, or attempting to prevent ingress to and egress from the plant area, by threatening bodily injury and property damage, by throwing objects at employees and vehicles, or by spreading nails on company property or the approaches to company prop- erty. WE WILL NOI in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. UNITED AUTOMOBILE. AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA. UAW. AND ITS LOCAL UNION No. 552 UAW. LOCAL 552 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD L DENISON. Administrative Law Judge: This consolidated proceeding was heard at Des Moines, Iowa. on December 14 and 15, 1977.1 The charges in Cases 18- CB-823 and 18-CB 843, filed by Delavan Corporation on June 6 and September 19. allege numerous violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act based on incidents of vio- lence which allegedly occurred during a strike of the Company's employees represented by the Charging Party, which began on June 1, 1977. The complaint, as amended, alleges that agents of the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, beginning on or about June 3 and at various times thereafter, by various activities, both at and away from the picket line, including mass picketing which blocked the ingress and egress to and from the Company's premises, the throwing of various objects at employees in their vehicles, showering the Company's driveway with nails, damaging vehicles, inflicting physical injury on em- ployees, setting fire to a trailer located on the Company's premises, and other similar conduct. The Respondent's an- swer denies the commission of any of the unfair labor prac- tices alleged in the complaint and the agency status of those persons alleged to be agents in the first and second amendments to the complaint.2 Upon the entire record in the case. including me obser- vation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FA(1 I JURISDICTION The jurisdictional allegations of the complaint are ad- mitted in the answer. Accordingly, I find that the Charging Party is, and has been at all times material herein, an Iowa corporation, whose principal office and place of business is located in the city of West Des Moines, Iowa, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of noz- zles, accessories, and related systems used in engines, pis- tons, pumps and motors. During the 12-month period end- ing June 30, a representative period, the Charging Party. in the course and conduct of its business operations, pur- chased and caused to be transported and delivered to its West Des Moines, Iowa. plant, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Iowa. During the same period of time, the Charging Party manufactured, sold and shipped from its West Des Moines, Iowa, plant. finished products valued in excess of | All dales referred toii I this I)c isi iarci 197 . 1 lllo, other le ' pcr.-- fled At Ihe hearing. .ounsel for the Respondentis nnoed for .i coiItiniu.iaCe of the trial on the ground ihat criminal charges ere pending conriernine the conduct Iof certain Indl'idual, narmed In Ihe (;eneral ( .ouncl', I.omplaint. as amended. this motion, ohbjeted I, hIs both counsel for (ienieral ( ounsel and counsel for the ( h;lrging Parts, a.is derned I he Repondentl made no other molion, relating itl Ihese crcurnslance. iand reJed lthotll p re ,cnillrn an) wtitnesses. although II is clear h;it there vere snltrlsses ii itn\ of Ihe alleged incidents other th;in those h.harged iv h criminii nll-,llJdutl $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Iowa. There- fore, I find that the Charging Part) is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2)., (6). and (7) of the Act. II tHE LABOR OR(GANIZArIONS INVOI itD) As admitted in the answer, I find that each of the Re- spondents are. and have been at all times material herein, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THI- UNFAIR LABOR PRACTI(CES A. Agency and Union Responsibilitl The original complaint alleges that the following named individuals occupied the positions set opposite their re- spective names, and have been and are now agents of the Respondents, acting on their behalf, within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Robert E. Roberts Donald L. Simpson Charles A. Cantrell Alberta L. Page Addie L. Cole Richard J. Munoz Ronald L. Coleman Felix A. Williams Raymond Rios Willard Evans John Grove Tom Jones Dann) Tew Bill Wasson Harold Pierce Intl. sub-regional director Local president Local first vice president Local recording secretary Local financial secretar) Chairman, local shop com- mittee Local negotiating commit- teeman Local negotiating commit- teeman Local negotiating commit- teeman Picket Picket Picket Picket Picket Picket Since by its original answer (G.C. Exh. I(e)). counsel for the Respondents admitted this allegation of the complaint, which is further supported by the record as a whole, I find that those persons listed above. at all times material herein. occupied the positions set opposite their respective names, and that theN have been and are now agents of the Respon- dents. acting on their behalf. within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. In two amendments to the original complaint, dated Oc- tober 18 and November 4. the General Counsel added the following named individuals and their alleged positions to the General Counsel's original agency allegation. Lawrence Powell James Bonanno Don Henderson Robert Hopkins Erbon Newton Gerald Friedma5er Picket Picket Picket Picket Picket Picket 313 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carl Gustafson Don Burgett Gary McDowell Picket Picket Picket The Respondents' answers to these amendments denied that these additional individuals are agents. Based upon my findings concerning the exents described hereafter in this Decision, I also find that the additional persons named immediately above occupied the positions set opposite their respective names and have been and are now agents of the Respondents, acting on their behalf, within the meaning of Section 2113) of the Act. Concerning all of the above-named individuals, I find applicable the principles set forth by Administrative Law Judge Jerry B. Stone, and approved by the Board, in Internomionl1 Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Buldler., B/ackt Imiuhs, brgers & Helpers, Local 696 (The Kargurd Companv), 196 N LRB 645 (1972), wherein at 647 648, it is stated: Board law reveals that where a union authorizes a picket line, it is required to retain control over the picketing. If a union is unwilling or unable to take the necessary steps to control its pickets, it must bear the responsibilit) for their misconduct. If a union autho- rizes a picket line without supervision or control. it must bear the responsibility for misconduct on the picket line. If a union exercises control and supervi- sion on a picket line, properly disavows and corrects misconduct, naturally such misconduct would not ap- pear to be pursuant to its authority. Fhe misconduct set iorth later herein is the tspe of conduct that comes within the scope of authorit, of the pickets' duties. Accordingly, I concluide and find that the Respondent is cesponlsible for the mlisconduc i that occuirred on the pick e t linc as set OtI litetr lhereill Tlhere is al ) cortenti.*n that Rcspindent is respon- sibl. :or pickets' iniid stirkikl hiierbetl ;' condiuct a, as front tile pi ket line. Sin. h ilt sc illducl1 l as occuirred vAa5 ulOmll the pickct rite m Ic,'lth :, il.nner as to he an cxteiision o[f picket line c ntlicl I ,nid to be withil the scope ,of authott is ot pikets I hits. for such conduct. I inid Respondent respo lnille. Appliinig thse pitoirlilcs ,o the int.int case. I find that where, as described be I,. utnlaT til ati is aie' founid to has c occurred either on rhc picket line or in ,uch a n.manner as to be clear extensionis tf picket tine tnlu tictl the Rcspondetiits herein arc respnsibhle. B. 7hce Eve'itt ol Jun, . Paragraphs (a) thllrough (I) relite to ecrints ahich iran- spired on the picket line at I)elavran Oin June . Based on uncontradicted and credited testimoni bhx Robert Sand- bloin. general chailmantl of thie bhard c(f Delavan (Corpoia- tion. Joseph Rsan, conpaiin president: eimplo\ees Kexin Berglund a an I)avid Kuila.I Police l.ieutena,lt Ra! lidlcr. and security guard Robert Koeneiman. as supported bs photographic exhibits, I find as follows: A strike of the Company's emploNees lepresented bhl Re- spondent l.ocal No. 552 hegain at 12:01 a.. on June 1. A picket line was established in front of the t;ie to the C(ompany's premises. TIhe pickets carried signs reading, "Notice Local 552 on strike." Working time begins at De- lavan at 7 a.m. At approximately 6:15 a.m., a group of between 35 and 50 pickets gathered in front of the Delavan gate, but as 7 a.m. approached, there were from between 100 to 150 pickets massed in front of the gate and a larger number gathered across the street. As employees began ar- riving for work. Local Union President Donald L. Simpson called out to the employees across the street, "Come on folks, let's walk," and at that point all of the employees gathered at the gate area blocking the gate. The cars of the arriving employees were stopped; hit with fists, picket signs, eggs, and rocks, as they were impeded from entering. The cars of those attempting to enter were surrounded by pickets and rocked back and forth in an effort to tip them over, while the driveway entrance and its approaches were showered with nails. Pickets Edward Perryman, John Grove, and Lawreuce Powell threw eggs at automobiles attempting to enter. Willard Evans, the Local Union's ser- geant-at-arms, Larry Powell, John Grove, and negotiating committeeman Raymond Rios, were also present in the crowd). Although it normally takes from 15 to 20 minutes for the employees to arrive and proceed through the gate to the plant area. on this occasion it took in excess of an hour because the pickets were standing still, blocking the drive- way. I hey were onIy able to enter after the arrival of the West Des Moines police. When employee David Kula ar- rived in his pickup truck. and was directed toward the gate by a police officer, his vehicle was hit with eggs and rocks as picket Harold Pierce dented the hood with the butt end of his picket sign. Pierce also jabbed Lieutenant Robert Koeneman. a security officer with Blanket Security, in the neck with the same Instrument. 4 As emploseec Kevin Berglund attempted to turn into the gate, hiis \an i as su-rrunded by a large group of striking employces c.ho began beating on the vehicle and yelling. Picket Vs ilI;id E'vans opened the door on the driver's side, and soniclne thirck a cup of soda pop onto Berglund's clothing. Pickets John Grove and Larry Powell, mean- while, stood near the vehicle. Awhile Richard Munoi. chair- mnmi( of the shop committee, observed from a few feet a,,a\. I)uring this period Rios, Grove, Powell, and Evans malde other efforts to pull car doors open, and continued bcating on x indshields. and heating and kicking automo- hile bodies There is no evidence that any of the Respon- dents' officers oi officials present made any effort to re- st;in the solent conduct of the pickets or to disavow the responliihili t for their actions. To the contrary, the evi- dence clearl1, shows that agents of the Respondents partici- patcd In the a;boe incidents of property damage and phys- ic.al abt se. Such conduct is clearly restraint and coercion of emplo ees. and \hern engaged in by pickets within the scope of their authonrits as pickets constitutes conduct by the Respondents violati\c of the Act. I find and conclude Rios 1s sorein ics referred Io nacurately in the record a, Rinos. I' I c s, rdeiT aIcu- lhit an, inlllsc'rlducl directed Io' ard Koene- Il11'i [~ !1.1[ Iv ;1\ ofl ltile t Sin rILC his aulhorllii I) fire emnplosees of BlI.Lr CIl Seil t! eCllhhlih lCs his superlisrms %liltus. [lthouth I find lthat ks Cliliii I. , i .JIc rlx ir , i upCIseIM , siiihin the leJning ot the Act, I ,tsl find iL ! .'c1 iiL'is ,lllt .t i o lailin sic 11t i)cculrrence in 1he prce'n cie if ,"W"cl 1 111)1po tt 1 .1 C,, liC f ' C Oti (11 IIlim.e 314 that the Respondents violated Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act as alleged in paragraphs 5(a) through (f) of the complaint. C. The Events of June 6 Based on the credited testimony of Joseph Ryan and Steve Schnoeblen, I find as follows: On the morning of June 6 a large group of pickets gathered at the Delavan gate. They stopped cars, hit and kicked vehicles, struck their windshields, and threw nails on the driveway apron. Employees attempting to enter were eventually successful only through the intervention of the police. Local 552 Pres- ident Donald Simpson was present during this activity. Shop Committee Chairman Richard Munoz assisted in preventing the ingress of cars by sitting and leaning on them. Employee Steve Schnoeblen arrived at the gate about 6:50 that morning. He had five passengers in his car. About 60 or 70 people milled about the car, and as he attempted to enter picket Willard Evans sprawled his body onto the hood of the car and pounded on it. Then Evans proceeded to the passenger side of the car and struck the windshield with the yardstick he was carrying. The testi- mony concerning these events is buttressed by photograph- ic evidence which shows Evans on Schnoeblen's hood. An- other photograph taken on June 6 shows striking employee Bill Stokes on the hood of another vehicle. The photo- graphs also show Local President Donald Simpson. picket Dan Tew, Shop Committee Chairman Richard Munoz, ne- gotiating committeeman Felix Williams and picket lIaw- rence Powell present at the gate that morning. Since there is evidence that the Respondents' agents were present and participated in the above-described activities, I find that the Respondents violated Section 8(b)( I)(A) of the Act, as alleged in paragraphs 5(a) and (h) of the complaint. I find, however, that the General Counsel has failed to prove that picket Tom Jones placed nails under a vehicle's tires on June 6, as alleged in paragraph 5(g), since I find the uncer- tain testimony of Sergeant Donald D. Wolfe. Jr.. to be unreliable in this respect. 5 D. June 14 Based on the credited testimony of Robert Althaus. Douglas Althaus, and Officer Dwa'!ne Giefer. of the Mount Pleasant Police Department, I find as follows: Rob- ert and Douglas Althaus are employed as installers b' Electronics Security Company. Beginning shortly before the commencement of the strike and continuing at various times thereafter, the Althaus brothers installed, main- tained, and repaired burglar alarms, video equipment. and fence alarms at Delavan. One of such visits to the plant occurred on June 14, on which day the) worked at Dela- van from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.mi. As the Althaus car left the Company's premises. a pickup truck driven by Ron Powers and containing picket Danny Tew and L ocal Wolfe confused the events of June 3 and .lullc h to tih degree ithi .I l nIe point he testified that he eohser.ed a picket klckill a 1i X Jue . 1 Jr lLr1 hlC another picket was placing a ilack srip undel the tire oft thie slae chllc i, li June 6. He later corrected himnelif hult rknoruleded lon lr -c, i .ii, n1I that his mnernorf ,as "pretty h.izs UAW. LOCAL 552 negotiating committeeman Raymond Rios pursued them. Shortly thereafter the pickup truck pulled alongside the Al- thaus vehicle and three blows decended onto the rear of the car shattering the windshield. Robert Althaus, who was driving, braked, and as the truck passed Danny Tew and Raymond Rios, admitted agents of the Respondents. were observed with raised baseball bats. I find that Te\w and Rios were the perpetrators of this reprehensible conduct which originated on the picket line at the I)elavan gate. It was, therefore, an outgrowth of picket line activity for which the Respondents are responsible. I therefore find that the Respondents violated Section 8lb)( 1)(A) of the Act as alleged in paragraph 5(i) of the complaint. E. June 16 The normal quitting time at Delavan is 3:30 p.m. Be- tween 3:30 p.m. and 3:45 p.m., Steve Schnoeblen pulled up to the gate and attempted to exit as two pickets passed from opposite directions in front of his car, while two other pickets stood to one side. Schnoeblen stopped briefly, and then as he started to proceed, one of the pickets in front of the car, Bill Wasson, moved to the passenger side and smashed the windshield with his picket sign. Glass frag- ments flew inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle and one passenger was injured. Immediately following the incident Watsson walked directly to a yellow jeep approxi- mately 75 to 100 feet away where he engaged Raymond Rios and Richard Munoz in an extended conversation.6 I find that this picket line misconduct engaged in by an ad- minitted agent of the Respondents, which was clearly con- doned by Local union officials, who are also admitted agents of the Respondents. violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, as alleged in paragraph 5(j) of the original com- plaint. I. t i(ttl During lihc , Month of Julh On Juls 15, according to the credited testimony of Dw as ne Giefer. he and fellow security guard Donald Bow- man were on duts at the [)clavan gate when they were approached by pickets Danny Tew and Robert Hopkins. Tew and Hopkins told them. "You had better get out of town." Giefer asked if that was a threat and Tew acknowl- edged that it was. Immediately following this conversation Hopkins got in Ron Powers' pickup truck, and the two men drove off. Tew remained and walked the picket line for about 15 or 20 minutes, until Powers returned and picked up 'Iew. Shortly thereafter Tew returned driving a 1964 light blue four-door Ford automobile, and proceeded to crash through the closed plant gate at about 30 to 35 miles an hour striking Bowman and knocking him to the ground. The vehicle proceeded through the plant area, around the building, hitting a parking abutment and an- other automobile before it exited the plant area. Bowman's glasses were smashed, and he was taken to the hospital where he received treatment for lacerations above his left eye, a damaged shoulder, and a bump on the head. Tew is [ICW tc.tiOillr of Rr ,r l ild St hrioehle rl I, suppolcltt h% phlographi, Cs Ikt l1, C 315 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an admitted agent of the Respondents. I therefore find that the Respondents are responsible for this despicable con- duct which clearly violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act,7 as alleged in paragraph 5(k) of the first amendment to the complaint. On July 22, based on the credited testimony of Joseph Ryan, a tractor trailer bearing the insignia of Brillion Iron Works of Brillion, Wisconsin, one of Delavan's longtime suppliers, arrived at the gate about 6:10 a.m. After a brief conversation with picket Gary McDowell, the truck pulled away and headed south down 4th Street. The incident was observed by Delavan's President Joseph Ryan who ar- ranged by CB radio to meet the driver at a local truck stop and to make the delivery. After unloading the truck at the dock the driver agreed to take Ryan back to the truck stop to retrieve his car. As the truck attempted to leave Delavan's premises at about 8:50 or 8:55 a.m., Williard Evans and Larry Powell maneuvered their vehicles so as to block its path. Meanwhile, the pickets surrounded the truck, struck blows on the tractor cab, and threatened to pull the driver out of the cab for a beating. The truck was able to proceed only after Ryan called out that one of the security guards should call the police. Thereafter, the truck was pursued by three vehicles driven by Evans. Munoz, and Powell. Finally, Shop Committee Chairman Munoz succeeded in positioning his Chevrolet Monte Carlo in front of the tractor where he slowed to about 30 or 35 miles an hour as Evans attempted to force the truck onto the shoulder of the road, while the driver and Ryan overheard these men summoning assistance on their CB radios. Even- tually they alluded their pursuers, Ryan got out of the truck at the exit near his automobile, and the truck proceeded. I find that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1)(A) of the Act as alleged in paragraphs 5(m) and (n) of the first amendment to the complaint, since admitted agents of the Respondents clearly engaged in misconduct which origi- nated on the picket line and proceeded from there onto the highway. G. Events in August On August 1, according to the mutually corroborative and credited testimony of Rhonda Newcomb and Nancy Robinson, they left the plant after work in Robinson's car, and after about 15 minutes noticed that they' were being followed by Shop Committee Chairman Richard Munoz. While they were stopped at an intersection Munoz pulled alongside and made an obscene gesture. He continued to follow them until they located a policeman. I find that the General Counsel has failed to prove that the Respondent' violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act with respect to this incident, as alleged in paragraph 5(o) of the first amend- ment to the complaint. There is no evidence that the inci- dent Newcomb and Robinson described had its origins in picket line activity. In addition, I also find that although The record contains no evidence %which would indcalle that either (Ileer or Bowman possessed an. authority or exercised an. of Ihe indicial of tIlucr- visor) status set forth in Sec. 2 I I) of the Act. It is hercfori cleav.r that thec were rank-and-file employees of Blanket Securill oin aisltnllnln ti pt1ati.litl Ii their employer's arrangement with [)ela.lvin Munoz is an admitted agent of the Respondents, his con- duct in this instance toward the two young women was not clearly related to the strike. Furthermore, under all the cir- cumstances presented, I find that his gesture, although crude, is not clearly misconduct of such a degree to consti- tute restraint or coercion in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. On August 5, according to the credited testimony of Jo- seph Ryan, picket Erbon Newton scratched the passenger side of Ryan's car as Ryan was leaving the plant about 5:30 p.m. Two security guards and three other pickets were present when this incident occurred. On August 30 picket James Bonanno shattered Board Chairman Robert Sandblom's windshield as he attempted to leave the plant at approximately 5:30 p.m. Security guards and other pickets were present. Considering these picket line incidents in the context of prior incidents involving admitted agents of the Respondents, including the incident of July 15 in which a Blanket Security guard was injured, I find that the Respon- dents were responsible for this conduct which violated Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, as alleged in paragraphs 5(p) and (r) of of the first amendment to the complaint. For the same reasons, based on credited testimony by Blanket Se- curity guard Douglas James, that the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act on August 16 when, in the presence of James and fellow security guard Ballard, picket Don Henderson placed nails on the apron of the drive at the Company's gate. as alleged in paragraph 5(q) of the first amendment to the complaint. H. September According to the testimony of employee Dale Jenkins, on September 28, as he and a friend attempted to enter the Delavan gate on their motorcycles, Jenkins was shoved on the shoulder by Local negotiating committeeman Ray- mond Rios, who then proceeded to hit Jenkins over the helmet and across the back with his picket sign. I credit Jenkins' testimony to the extent that I find that he was shoved by Rios on this occasion. I further find that this picket line misconduct, perpetrated by an admitted agent of the Respondents, violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act as alleged in paragraph 5(s) of the first amendment to the complaint. However. I do not credit Jenkins' testimony that Rios hit him over the helmet and across the back with his picket sign, since in his affidavit, given to the Board agent on the day of the incident, Jenkins made no refer- ence to having been hit with the picket sign.8 I. Fhe Altercarion at the Plant Gate on October 21 Based on the credited testimony of Joseph Ryan. Brian Francies. and Steve Newman, I find as follows: On Friday, October 21, at quitting time as employees were leaving, Brian Francies and Steve Newman left the plant on foot and proceeded to a bank a short distance up the street to cash their paychecks. As the) proceeded up the street they were followed by picket Danny T[cv in his automobile. Atl the c, tnlul,,wn o.f 11h (,eiicrIal ( 'unlcl's .casc I craulllcd . Imliolln h coiUI11Cl O.1 lc (1 l t ( ct (oulsl to delte C fIlloil It ht co lplaint pars I Ill and (t]) t11ill oillct. moheT TIitolldtl.t hIt Rios oil Scp(ctliher 28. 316 tJAW, LOCAl 552 When Francies and Newman left the bank they noticed Tew parked across the street. Francies and Newman pro- ceeded to walk back in the direction of the plant. since the house in which they lived was located a few blocks past the plant property. Shortly thereafter Tew passed them. stopped, exited the car, and invited them to fight. TIhe two men declined and kept walking, passing the plant gate from which the vehicles of departing employees were exit- ing with the assistance of a police officer. At a point near the end of the company fence, Francies and Newman were accosted by Tew and picket Gerald Friedmaver who began swinging at them. Friedmayer was utilizing a piece of rub- ber hose. Newman and Francies resisted. Francies knocked Fnedmayer down, and rushed to Newman's assis- tance, grabbing Tew and wrestling with him against the fence. At this point pickets Willard Evans. Robert Hop- kins, and another picket identified in the record only as Gustafson. rushed to assist Tew and Friedmayer. Francies was knocked to the ground where Willard Evans kicked him in the face. At this point the police officer rushed to their assistance, and attempted to control Tew as Francies and Newman ran in the direction of the company gate. Tew eluded the police officer, and raced after Francies. followed by Evans. As Francies reached the south gatepost Tew grabbed Francies by the hair and the entire melee was swept through the gate onto company property as Gustaf- son began punching Francies in the lower back area with his fist, and Newman was struck with a picket sign. The record clearly shows that the above events comprised a single transaction beginning and ending at the picket line at the Delavan gate. It is also clear that agents of the Re- spondents sought to goad Francies and Newman into fighting, and when they did not succeed proceeded to bru- tally assault them. I find that the Respondents are respon- sible for this despicable conduct, which clearly violates Section 8(b)(1)(XA) of the Act as alleged in paragraph 5(v) of the second amendment to the complaint. J. The Events of October 31 The credited testimony of Joseph Ryan, employees Mary McKinney and Bertrand Else, and videotapes, taken by special security cameras installed on the roof of the Delavan plant by the Althaus brothers from Electronics Security Company, show that a large crowd of striking em- ployees gathered before the Delavan gate between 4 and 5 a.m. on the morning of October 31.9 Employees had been instructed to report early for work that morning in order to avoid confrontations with the demonstrators. Nevertheless, a mass demonstration, accompanied by unrestrained vio- lence, ensued, in the presence of International Sub-Region- al Director Robert E. Roberts, Local Union President Donald L. Simpson, and Local Recording Secretary Alber- ta L. Page, involving agents of the Respondents. At about 9 Four reels of videotape, labeled G.C Exhs 21. 22. 23. and 24. swere offered into evidence by the General Counsel. G.C. Exhs. 22 and 24. the only videotapes concerning which witness Joseph R)an lestified. were re- ceived. G.C. Exhs. 21 and 23. unaccompanied bs tesinmonn. were rejecled Nevertheless. G.C. Exhs 21 and 23. marked rejected. w.ere forairded h. the Administrative Law Judge along with the other exhibits ..ccordigls, thes have been placed in the rejected exhibil file. 4:57 a.m. picket Don Burgett smashed the window of a mosing '.chicle proceeding south on Fourth Street. As the crowd grew in size around 5:47 a.m., debris began to be thrown over the company fence. One of the individuals throwing debris was picket McDowell. At approximately 5:52. the crowd of striking employees. in the presence of union officials. proceeded to roll a portion of a large tim- ber in a position so as to block the gate. lmmediatel, there- after pickets Danny Tew and McDowell assembled a stick which they then used to break out the window of a trailei the C(ompany has stationed just inside the fence for the use of the security guards. Immediately afterward, with Rob- erts stationed nearby, Tew and McDowell began throwing matches and lighted cigarettes through the broken window of the security trailer. A flaming torch was then prepared which picket Burgett threw over the fence and picket Tew slid under the trailer, setting it on fire. The fire was ex- tinguished by the company fire brigade, in the midst of a shower of bottles and other thrown debris. As Local Presi- dent Simpson looked on, a second torch was slid under the trailer h' McDowell and Tew igniting another fire. Pursuant to instructions, Mary McKinney arrived at the Delavan gate shortly after 4 a.m. At that time four pickets were stationed at the gate. As she attempted to enter they placed their hands on the car and began screaming at her. Next. theN started beating on the car, whereupon McKin- ney began to back up until she hit the car behind her. One of the pickets beating on the car was Danny Tew. Another was Willard Evans. Before McKinney could maneuver her vehicle in a position to escape. Evans used the butt end of the club he was carrying to break the window on the driver side of the McKinney vehicle, following which he jabbed the club two or three times through the window into the car cutting McKinney's hand, fingers, and arm, and fracturing two of her ribs. Thus, it is clear that on October 31 agents of the Respondents engaged in mass picketing, blocked the entrance to the Delavan plant, set fires to company prop- erty, showered company firefighting employees with as- sorted missiles, and perpetrated property damage and per- sonal injuries upon the vehicles and persons of nonstriking employees as they attempted to enter the plant. Much of this conduct occurred in the presence of Local Union offi- cials and an International representative. I therefore find that the Respondents violated Section 8(b)( I)(A) of the Act on October 31 as alleged in paragraphs (w), (x). (y). (z). (aa). and (bb) of the second amendment to the complaint. CON( LIl SIONS OF LAW 1. The Charging Party is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondents are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By assaulting and physically injuring employees, throwing objects at employees and vehicles, threatening employees, and supervisors in the presence of employees, with bodily harm and property damage, by damaging vehi- cles and company property, spreading nails, and by engag- ing in mass picketing, blocking, preventing, and attempting to prevent employees at Delavan Corporation from enter- 317 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing the plant, the Respondents, through their agents, vio- lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondents have not violated the Act in any respects other than those specifically found. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order that the Respondents cease and desist therefrom, and take cer- tain affirmative action designed to effecutate the policies of the Act."o Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER " The Respondents, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, and its Local Union No. 552, their officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from assaulting and physically injur- 10 In its brief the Charging Part) requested thlt. as part of the remed, Ithe undersigned recommend the revocation of the U:nion's certification I do not do so since I find that the conduct of the Respondents' agents. altlhough reprehensible. was not ias widespread and destructive of the entire aigain- ini relationship as were the cases cited by the (Charging Part) In the event no exceptions are filed as provided bs Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National I.ahor Relations Boalrd. the findings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as proi ded in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board iand hecoitic its findings. conclusions, and Order, and all object.ion thereto 1hall hr deemed waived for all purposes. ing employees, throwing objects at employees and vehicles, threatening bodily harm and property damage, damaging vehicles and company property, spreading nails on drive- ways and approaches to driveways, and engaging in mass picketing, blocking, preventing, and attempting to prevent ingress or egress into and out of the plant of Delavan Cor- poration. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at the offices and meeting halls of Local Union No. 552 copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, shall, after being signed by an authorized representative of each of the Respon- dents, shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon- dents to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In addition, it is ordered that the Respondents shall furnish the Regional Director for Region 18 with a sufficient number of copies of said notice signed by an authorized representative of each of the Respondents, on forms provided by the Regional Di- rector, for mailing by the Regional Director to each em- ployee member of both Respondents and to the Charging Party for posting, it being willing, at all locations where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. L In the event thai this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States (Court (of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted b) Order of the Naona;lll.ll I.lhbor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States ( ourt of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National abhor Relations Board" 318