United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO 71 8(b) (4) (D) to assign the disputed work to members of the League rather than to employees represented by United. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO and Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation . Case No. 1-CB-865. February 05, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On December' 3, 1963, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this case, including the Respondent's' exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the find- ings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. There is no exception to the Trial Examiner's findings of fact with regard to the Respondent Union's threats and acts of violence during its picketing of the Charging Company's plant. In any event, we are satisfied that such findings are amply supported by the record. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by such conduct directed at non- striking employees, as well as by threats and violence directed at supervisors in the presence of both striking and nonstriking em- ployees? We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that it was prejudicial error for the Trial Examiner to deny its request for a continuance of the hearing pending the disposition by the State 1 We hereby correct the Trial Examiner 's occasional inadvertent references to the Charging Party's plant superintendent , John Hawkesworth, and its production service manager, Arthur Simonds (erroneously spelled S-i-m-o-n -s at one place in the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision ) as being Respondent's supervisors. We also note that Cliff Hague is the same Hague mentioned as one of three of the Respondent Union's officials present at various times relevant here. 2 International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. (W. T. Smith Lumber Com- pany), 116 NLRB 507, enfd. 243 F. 2d 745 (C.A. 5). 146 NLRB No. 11. 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -courts of criminal cases arising out of the same acts of violence, par- ticularly as the request was withdrawn by the Respondent at the close of the hearing. We likewise find no merit in the Respondent's con- tentions that the number of violations found did not warrant the issuance of an order, as the incidents were too numerous and flagrant to be treated as de minimis; or in the contention that no order.should issue because the strike has ended, as it is "settled law that the dis- continuance of unfair labor practices does not dissipate their effect and does not obviate the need for a remedial order." 3 ORDER The Board adopts as its order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.4 8 Chefs, Cooks, Pastry Cooks and Assistants, Local 89, Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, AFL-CIO; et al. ( Stork Restaurant , Inc.), 130 NLRB 543, 546. * The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph therein, the following paragraph: 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 Respondent, United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, repre- sentatives, successors, and assigns ; shall: TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed and served on July 23, 1963, by Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation alleging that United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union or the Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, a representative of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the General Counsel and the Board, issued a complaint dated September 6,. 1963, alleging violations by Respondent of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. The complaint (as subsequently amended on September 16, 24, and 27 ) alleged, in substance , that Respondent had engaged in various acts of intimidation and violence or threats of such in connection with its picketing of the Employer 's plant and blocked or attempted to block the access of employees and others to and from said premises. In answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice , the matter was heard by Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon at Worcester, Massachusetts , on October 8 and 9, 1963, with all parties represented by counsel. The parties waived oral argument but a brief was filed by the Respondent. . Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS INVOLVED Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation is a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Massachusetts . At all times material herein it has maintained its principal office and place of business in the city of Worcester, Massachusetts , where it has been continuously engaged in the manu- facture, sale, and distribution of data processing equipment and related products. In the course and conduct of its business it causes and continuously has caused at all times material herein substantial quantities of data processing equipment to be sold and transported from said plant to States of the United States other than the State of Massachusetts. These shipments annually exceed $50 ,000 in value. Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation I find is and has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 73 United Steelworkers of-America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. ' The matters involved in this proceeding grew out of picketing by Respondent Union at the Charging Party's plant in Worcester, Massachusetts, that began on May 13, 1963. The credited evidence shows the following facts: During the week of June 17,1 John Hawkesworth, Respondent's plant super- intendent, went out to the plant entrance one afternoon about 4:20 to help in picking up nails from the driveway before the shift ended and employees left for home. There were about 50 pickets on the scene and Hawkesworth "was pushed around to a considerable degree" when he tried to. get through the pickets and while he was picking up nails. One of the pickets, Eddie Beaudry, "bounced" him with his shoul- der on one occasion and on another (as Hawkesworth was stooped down collecting nails ) he attempted to step on Hawkesworth's hand. A few moments later as Hawkesworth was trying to get more nails, Bill Bowes, another picket, pushed him with his shoulder. Later in the same week on another occasion when Hawkesworth was out picking up nails another picket, Cecil Pedone, gave him "a pretty good shove with his shoulder" and told him to get out of the line. On July 18, shortly before the end of the 4:30 shift, Hawkesworth was again out at the entrance picking up nails. There were also about six or eight police officers present. The pickets were blocking the entrance and the officers were having some difficulty in opening a lane through them. The officers would walk into the line and say, "Okay, let's open it up." They would also back up to the picketers and wait for stragglers to get between the two rows of officers but there was a continuous line of stragglers and the police were not able to open a completely clear line. As Hawkesworth was watching the police efforts he heard something strike a car behind him. He swung around to see what happened in time to see an employee, Dan Lucey, leaving his car and chase a man running toward Gold Star Boulevard. A group of pickets broke away and followed them on the run. Hawkesworth followed and saw that Lucey was trying to hold onto the man he had been chasing. About this point the other pickets overtook them and one of them, Cliff Hague, began hitting Lucey with his fists. Eventually the police got things "settled down" and the cars were able to leave. Among those present on the picket line on this occasion was Union Organizer Ray Murray. On July 23, the police had similar trouble in getting cars through the pickets who again numbered about 75. On this occasion the pickets surrounded one of the employees' cars and attempted to pull the door open. About the same time one of the striking employees, Mitchell Perry, spun Production Service Manager Arthur Simonds around and struck him, breaking his glasses and cutting his nose. Union Officials Murray, Sullivan, and Hague were present on this occasion. After this incident the police finally moved in two lanes with their backs to the pickets opening up an aisle for the cars to leave. As the cars left nails were being thrown at them from the crowd. In spite of all the policemen's effort stragglers would get through the cordon and would walk in front or jump in front of cars stopping them. About the same time of the day on July 18, Production Service Manager Simonds was at the entrance picking up nails. One of the pickets, Zenovitch, gave him a shove and told him he had no business being there and to "get the hell out." Simonds continued picking up nails and Zenovitch came by again and gave him two big shoves. Simonds moved away from Zenovitch and continued his efforts. Then Cliff Hague went over to Simonds and prodded him with an elbow and told him he .,was going to stick that stick up [his] rear." 2 On this same occasion Zenovitch told him he would wrap the stick around his head if he did not get out of the line. On June 24 during the lunch hour William Kirk and fellow-employee Ken Norling left the plant in Kirk's automobile to drive to the A & P Market located adjacent to the plant premises. As they left the main entrance one of the pickets, James "Red" Healy, of some 15 or so present, hollered at them, "You are going to get it." When they got to the store Kirk stayed in the car while Norling went in to get some groceries. While waiting for Norling, Kirk noticed in his rearview mirror two of the pickets approaching from the rear. The pickets were Mel Law and Healy. 1 All dates are in 1963. 2 The company people had been using sticks with magnets on their end to aid them In picking up the nails. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD When they got to the driver's side of the car Law yanked Kirk's arm and called him "scum." Kirk pulled his arm away and the two pickets called him "scab" and "scum" and "various names" and told him he was stupid to be working at Wright Line. In an apparent effort to belittle Kirk's position regarding the strike, Healy made a comment the implication of which was that his wife had more manliness than Kirk. Kirk said to Healy, "What did you do, marry a queer?" Healy asked Kirk to repeat the remark which Kirk did. This enraged Healy and he began striking at Kirk through the open car window and attempted to enter the car. At this point Kirk pushed the door of the car open with his foot and got out. Then Law and Healy came at Kirk with their fists up. Kirk began kicking at Healy who grabbed his foot. Then Healy and Kirk went into a clinch and fell to the ground. As they were scrambling on the ground Healy called to Law for help but Law said, " I can't bit him while he is down." Next, someone whistled and Law said, "Cops coming; break up the fight." Thereupon the two pickets left and returned to the picket line. On September 12 Gordon P. Miller, the Company's director of industrial rela- tions, went out to the main entrance about 3:30 to pick up nails. There were not many cars leaving the plant at this time since 4:30 was quitting time. Three or four cars did go out, however, but instead of using the main entrance headed for the south entrance. There were about 30 or 40 pickets at the main entrance at this time. They started yelling "let's get them" and 10 or 15 started to run toward the south entrance. Apparently the cars got out without incident and Gordon went back into the plant. Shortly before 4:30 Gordon returned to the main entrance in the company of Arthur Walker, comptroller of the Company, and three other officials of the Com- pany for the purpose of picking up nails. At this time the number of pickets on the scene had grown to more than a hundred. Among those present were Union Officials Murray, Sullivan, Hague and John Andonian. There were also 3 or 4 police cars and 8 to 10 police officers present. Two or three cars which had come to the plant to pick up passengers attempted to enter but could not do so until a line was opened up by the policemen through the pickets., Shortly after 4:30 cars were lined up with the outgoing employees. The cars had piled up waiting for the police to open a path through the pickets. This was not easy because the pickets would not obey the oral commands of the police and it was necessary to physically push the pickets back. This the police did by lock- ing arms and making.a human chain to contain the pickets. After a small path was opened by the police,, Walker, Miller, and the other company officials went into the area and tried to pick up nails which were thrown all over the ground.. As they did this the pickets were pushing and. shoving against the police lines and giving them "a lot of verbal abuse." Suddenly the pickets broke through both lines and began mauling the company officials. Miller and Walker were both kicked and shoved as they tried to force their way out of the mob. Walker, in addition to being kicked and mauled, received a number of blows including a very sharp, hard blow on the back of his head. After they managed to get out of the driveway area and through the crowd of pickets (which they did with the aid of the police officers) there was a considerable delay before the line was opened up again. Some of the delay was caused by a fire alarm that had been turned in and some apparently by the fact that several of-the pickets had been taken into custody by the police and were taken from the scene by the "paddy wagon." In due time the police, having received substantial reinforcements, again formed a human chain and moved into the picket line and forced an opening for the outcoming cars. As the cars moved' through there was a lot of confusion. The pickets were yelling and nails and stones were hitting the cars. Suddenly the pickets broke through the police lines again and there was an- other delay while further arrests were made. On this occasion Walker observed Sullivan in the street with the police. It was not until about 5:15 that all the cars had finally left the company premises. On August 4, Gary Bowman went to the plant about 11 a.m. and made an ap- plication for employment. He left the plant about 2:15 going out the main entrance and through the picket line. As he walked through the line the pickets called him names like "scab worker" but nothing else happened at that time. He crossed the street in front of the plant and started toward the corner. Three men were there, one of them being Union Organizer Murray. They started calling him names as had the other pickets and followed him for 20 or 30 feet and then turned around and went back. Bowman continued walking away and had gotten as far as the West Boylston Street Spa when a car drove up behind him and Murray and the other two men got out. They started talking to Bowman and one of the men said that Bowman, "was taking his job away from him and he had three kids to UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO 75 support." Bowman said it was not his fault and Murray slugged him with his left hand breaking Bowman's jaw. Murray told him not to come back to work as this was "just a taste" of what he would get if he did. Bowman started to walk back toward the plant where a police cruiser was parked. When Murray saw this he told Bowman to stay away from the police and keep his mouth shut. Thereupon Bowman went into a business establishment and called the police. He waited about 10 minutes for the police to arrive. When they came they took him back to the plant where first aid was applied. Then they took him to the hospital but stopped at the courthouse first where he swore out a warrant. The foregoing evidence amply sustains the allegations in the complaint that Respondent restrained and coerced employees of Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by inflicting and threatening to inflict bodily injury to and property damage of employees of the Charging Party and others and by blocking the entrance to said Company' s plant all for the purpose of preventing said Company's employees and others from crossing Respondent's picket line. District 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (Eastern Camera & Photo Corp.), 141 NLRB 991; Inter- national Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO (Region 5) (Pioneer Lumber Corpo- ration ), 140 NLRB 602; Central Massachusetts Joint Board, Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (Charles Weinstein Company, Inc.), 123 NLRB 590; United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and-Local No. 2772, etc. (Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc.), 137 NLRB 95; Bonnaz Embroideries Tucking and Pleating and Allied Crafts Union Local 66, etc. (William L. Davis, et al., dibia V: & D. Machine Embroidery Co.), 134 NLRB 879. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent 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 commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in conduct proscribed by Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist from such con- duct and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Also, being convinced that Respondent's activities indicate a purpose on its part to defeat the policies and processes of the Act and demonstrate the likelihood of their repetition in the future, I shall recommend, in order to make effective the independent guarantees of Section 7 and to effectuate the policies of the Act, that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights of em- ployees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 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. Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inflicting and threatening to inflict bodily injury to and property damage to employees of Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation and by blocking ingress and egress to-its plant in connection with its picketing of said plant, Respond- ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record herein, I recommend. that United Steelworkers of America, AFL- CIO, its officers, representatives , agents, successors, and assigns, shall: -1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inflicting and threatening to inflict bodily injury to and property damage to employees of Wright Line Division of Barry Wright. Corporation and blocking ingress and egress of said plant. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section '7 of the Act. 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its meeting hall or halls, where employees of Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation who are members of Respondent meet, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Supply the Company with properly signed copies of said notice for posting by the Company at the Company's premises. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply, hherewith .4 sin the event that this Recommended Order shall be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." 4 In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT inflict or threaten to inflict bodily injury on the employees of Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation, or inflict property damage on them or threaten such damage. WE WILL NOT block the entrance to said company' s plant or prevent (by means of threats or other coercive conduct) the entrance to or exit from said company's premises. WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as ,amended. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Tele- phone No. 523-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Richard J. Pisarski and Local 164, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind. Cases Nos. 7-CA-3937 and 7-CA-3958. February 25, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On May 6, 1963, 'Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 146 NLRB No. 1.