Local Union No. 8505, Etc., District 30, UMW

652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the representative of our employees in the above -stated unit, by refusing to meet with said Union except upon condition that it accept all of our demands, by unilaterally raising wages of our employees or otherwise changing their terms or conditions of employment, or in any other manner refusing to bargain with said Union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. ROSE PRINTING COMPANY, INC., Employer. 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, Ross Building, 112 East Cass Street, Tampa, Florida, Telephone No. 223-4623, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Local Unions Nos. 8505, 8915, 5899, 7788 and 8161, District 30, United Mine Workers of America and Harold Fuel Company, Inc.; New Virgie "Coals, Inc.; Charles F. Trivette Coal Com- pany, Inc.; Utilities Esco Coal Corporation ; Ramsey Elkhorn Coal Company, Inc.; East Kentucky Collieries, Inc.; Robert Holcomb, C. D. Roberts and Robert Billups d/b/a Dixie Min- ing Company ; Fire King Coal Company, Inc.; Premium Elk- horn Mining Company, Inc.; Left Beaver Coal Company, Inc.; C. 0. Coleman, d/b/a C. 0. Coleman Coal Company Lee Howell, Lowell Sammons, Berman Gibson, Bennie Mullett, Jr., and the Individuals Listed on Attachment "A" et al. and Highland Hill Coal' Company Milford Adkins and the Individuals Listed on Attachment "B" et al. and Right Beaver Coal Company, Inc. Cases Nos. 9-CB- 1064-1, 9-CB-1064-9, 9-CB-1064-3,' 9-CB-1064-4, 9-CB-1064-5, 9-CB-1064-6, 9-CB-1064-7, 9-CB-1064-8, 9-CB-1064-9, 9-CB- k64-10,9-CB-1064-11,9-CB-1073, and 9-CB-1084. April 3,1964 DECISION AND ORDER On August 27, 1963, Trial Examiner Horace Ruckel issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the consolidated complaint and recommending that the consolidated complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Parties filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report 'and-sup- 146 NLRB-No. 80. LOCAL UNION NO. 8505, ETC., DISTRICT 30, UMW 653 porting briefs, and the Respondents filed briefs in support of the, Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 briefs, and the entire record in this. case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] 1 The Trial Examiner incorrectly found that there was no evidence that any officer of Respondent Local 8915 was present at the meeting of the roving pickets on September 12, 1962, as there is testimony that the president of this local was present at that meeting. We find, however, that such inadvertent error does not affect the ultimate conclusion, which was reached by the Trial Examiner and which we adopt herein, that the Respond, ent Local Unions were not responsible for the alleged 8(b) (1) (A) violations herein. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Unfair labor practice charges were filed on September 24, 1962, by Harold Fuel, Company, Inc.; New Virgie Coals, Inc.; Charles F. Trivette Coal Company, Inc.; Utilities Esco Coal Corporation; Ramsey Elkhorn Coal Company, Inc.; East Kentucky Collieries, Inc.; Dixie Mining Company; Fire King Coal Company, Inc.; Premium Elkhorn Mining Company, Inc.; Left Beaver Coal Company, Inc.; and C. O. Coleman Coal Company, all herein called the Charging Parties or the Com- panies, against Local Unions Nos. 8505, 8915, 5899, 7788 and 8161, District 30,, United Mine Workers of America (Case No. 9-CB-1064-1 to 11),' herein called Respondent Locals. Other charges were filed on October 24, 1962, by Highland Hill Coal Company (Case No. 9-CB-1073) against Lee Howell, Berman Gibson, Lowell Sammons, Bennie Mullet, Jr., and others, and charges on December 19, 1962, by Right Beaver Coal Company, Inc. (Case No. 9-CB-1084), against Milford, Adkins and others.' Pursuant to these charges the Regional Director for the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on, February 28, 1963, issued a consolidated complaint against Respondents, alleging, in substance, that Respondents have restrained and coerced- employees of the Com- panies in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 and in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act, by blocking ingress to and egress from their place of work by mass picketing and threats and acts of violence. Respondents have filed answers denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel conducted a hearing at Pikeville, Kentucky, on April 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, and 24, 1963, at which the parties were represented by counsel. Subsequent to the hearing the General Counsel and Respondents filed briefs. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: 1 The complaint (Case No 9-CB-1064) includes as Respondents 83 other individuals who are named in Attachment A thereto.,, These individuals' collectively are alleged to constitute a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and are herein called Respondent roving pickets (group A). The complaint (Case No 9-CB-1073) includes as Respondents 68 other individuals who are named in Attachment B thereto. These individuals are alleged to constitute a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act They are herein. referred to as Respondent roving pickets ,(group B). Respondent roving pickets (group A) is named in the charge filed on Octo-_ her 24, and Respondent roving pickets (group B) in that filed on December 19, 1962. `654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS'OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES The Companies named in the complaint as Charging Parties are engaged in the business of operating coal mines or processing plants in localities in eastern Kentucky. During the 12 months prior to the issuance of the complaint each of the coal companies sold and shipped in interstate commerce from their respective mines or processing plants in the State of Kentucky, to points outside of the State, products of a value in excess of $50,000. The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find that the Companies are employers as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, and are engaged in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND ALLEGED LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 1. The complaint alleges, and I find, that Local Unions Nos. 8505, 8915, 5899, 7788 and 8161, District 30, United Mine Workers of America, are labor organiza- tions within ,the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and admit employees of the Charging Parties to membership. 2. The complaint alleges, but Respondents deny, that Respondent roving pickets constitute labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. This question cannot be answered short of inquiring into the origin and structure of the roving pickets and examining their activities. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Respondent Locals and Respondent roving pickets 1. The definition of a labor organization :Section 2-(5) of the Act defines a labor organization as follows: The term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work. Section 8(b) (1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organiza- tion or its agents to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, to form, join, or assist labor organizations and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or their mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from such activities. The complaint alleges that the Local Unions named therein, and the individuals said to be acting as their agents, as well as all the individuals comprising Respondent roving pickets are agents of all the Respondents and of each other. The General Counsel's brief characterizes the purposes and activities of these various organiza- tions, groups, and individuals, as a joint venture, or conspiracy, and that in pursuit of it Respondents engaged in threats and acts of violence which coerced employees of the charging coal Companies. If this is true, and if such threats and acts were something more than isolated incidents, then Respondents and their agents must be found to have violated the Act and rendered themselves subject to the Board's remedial action. But this subject to one condition: that the Local Unions and the roving pickets are labor organizations within the above definition. If these threats and acts were those of individuals, or of organizations other than labor organiza- tions, specifically if the two groups of roving pickets are not labor organizations, then they are beyond the reach of the Act. It is conceded by all the parties that Local Unions Nos. 8505, 8915, 5899, 7788, and 8161 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. In their case the question is simply whether, by their agents, they engaged in the coercion said to have been exercized against employees. 2. The activities of the roving pickets During the latter part of August and the first part of September 1962, hundreds of coal miners in the eastern counties of Kentucky and elsewhere, members of the United Mine Workers of America, herein called UMW, received letters from its wel- fare and retirement fund revoking their welfare cards. These cards had made them and their families eligible for free treatment at the Miners Memorial Hospitals, a chain of hospitals built some years before by UMW. These, and certain related services, are financed and supported by a 40-cent royalty paid by the coal companies to the fund for each ton of coal produced, as provided for in the UMW contract. LOCAL UNION NO. 8505, ETC., DISTRICT 30, UMW 655 The miners to whom these letters were sent were employed by operators who were not paying the royalty as required. The loss of the cards and the threatened closing of the hospitals themselves, constituted the most recent of the adverse economic hap- penings which have affected the area in question in recent years. The number of miners employed in the larger mines has decreased, and the number of those working in small truck mines has increased. Many miners who would otherwise be without work have become employed in these mines. Some of them hire members of the UMW but others do not. Some of those which are organized have failed to pay the royalty provided for in the contract, and, apparently in some instances, the agreed hourly wage. Upon receipt of these letters from the welfare fund, meetings of miners and others were held to discuss the situation. The General Counsel contends that the origin of the roving pickets is to be found in two early meetings of the Respondent Local Unions, and cites a meeting held in the McDowell School, at McDowell, in Floyd County, testified to by witness Charles Bailey. Bailey, asked on direct examination if he had attended a "local union" meeting in September 1962, replied that he had, and fixed the date as September 6. He did not state, nor was he asked, what local union this was, nor is there any other evidence to identify the local. He did say that it was addressed by Odell Cavins, who was a mine committeeman of Local 7788, but lest it be thought from this that the meeting was a meeting of Local 7788 it is noted that Bailey himself was a member of Local 8167, which is not a respondent. No reason appears why either Cavins or Bailey should have been present at a meeting of a local other than his own. It is more reasonable to conclude, as I do, that this meeting was one of the early meetings of the roving pickets, and not a meeting of any local. It was attended by miners who were, inevitably, members of some local union. A group admitted to be roving pickets, and not any of Respondent Locals, held a meeting at the same place a week later, on September 12, at which several hundred miners, employed and unemployed, their wives and children, were present. The above is all the evidence there is in this record to support the contention in the General Counsel's brief, that "shortly following this announcement [that welfare cards were being withdrawn] Respondent Locals which are admittedly labor organi- zations . . . and other local unions . held meetings for the purpose of discussing this action . and ways to alleviate it, if possible. On or about September 6, 1962, the first such union meeting was held at McDowell, Kentucky." There is much evidence in the record as to meetings of roving pickets, but there is none except the testimony of Bailey, quoted above, that "ways to alleviate" the problem posed by the suspension of the welfare cards were discussed at any meeting of any Respondent Local. I find that the roving pickets were not formed in the womb of the Respond- ents Local Unions. There is uncontroverted evidence, however, that a certain few officers or com- mitteemen of Local Unions were present and spoke at meetings of the roving pickets, and assumed positions of leadership which they maintained throughout the picketing. The visit of Cavins, mine committeeman for Respondent Local 7788, to the roving pickets meeting of September 6, has been noted Robert Carver, president of Re- spondent Local 8161, who was present at the September 12 meeting, testified that during the meeting several presidents of local unions, including himself, Wayne Griffith, president of Local 7788, and Ray Tackett, president of Local Union 8505, met apart from the others and discussed what they could do to forward the objectives of the larger meeting They decided that they could do nothing as officers of their locals, but could and would help as individuals. Announcement to this effect was made at the general meeting. Another meeting of pickets and members of the general public was held on about September 22 and addressed by Lee Howell, who, along with Berman Gibson, later came to be the principal leader of the pickets. Neither Howell nor Gibson was an officer of any union local, and Howell had not been a member since 1940. Jim Thornsberry, president of Respondent Local 5899, also spoke at the meeting. About 700 was collected from those present for the use of the pickets. Not long thereafter, at another meeting, Thornsberry announced that he had collected another sum, this time about $1,200, from members of Local 5899, by passing the hat among them .2 2 This was the principal method of raising money. which was contributed not only by miners but by members of the public generally Since coal mining was the principal industry in the area, it was inevitable that the contributors should include numbers of miners, members of one or another of the Respondent Local Unions. It is not con- tended that Thornsberry collected this money at a local union meeting. 744-670-65-vol. 146-43 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The above-described meetings are not untypical of subsequent meetings of pickets. It is upon these meetings that General Counsel relies, along with other factors, to establish that the roving pickets and their leaders were agents of Respondent Local Unions. Leaving discussion of this contention until later, I turn now to the consideration of the activities of the roving pickets as throwing light on General Counsel's contention that they are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. The first picketing by these groups appears to have occurred on September 13, 1962, the day following the second meeting at the McDowell School. From then on over a period from September 13, 19, and 20 to sometime in January 1963, groups of roving pickets in cars and trucks descended on more than 200 locations, most of them truck mines, in various counties in eastern Kentucky, including Johnson, Pike, Knott, Perry, and Floyd. Their numbers varied, on occasion reaching as high as 200 to 300 persons, including men and women. Most of the men in the groups were members of the United Mine Workers, but some were not. The miners were both employed and unemployed, though the record does not indicate in what proportion. Upon arrival near a mine or mining operation the cars would as a rule be parked on both sides of the highway, and a delegation would, proceed up the road leading to the mine. When it arrived at the mine it would seek out the mine operator and ask his permission to speak to the employees. This was usually granted. The delegation would ask the employees what wages they were getting, whether they were members of the United Mine Workers, and, if so, if they were receiving welfare and other benefits as provided for in the UMW contract. The delegation would describe the conditions facing the miners in the Appalachian coal fields, emphasizing particularly the loss of welfare cards, and ask the miners to quit work. Some did quit and join the pickets; others did not. No picket signs were carried at any time by the roving pickets, and when they left no picket was left behind. The pickets rarely spoke to the mine operator other than to ask permission to speak to the employees, although they did on occasion exchange comments as to the sufficiency of existing rates of pay and the economic conditions prevailing throughout the coalfields. These conversations when they occurred, were general in nature and incidental to, and aside from, the conversations with the employees. It was seldom that any request or suggestion was made concerning wages, hours, or other conditions of employment by either the pickets or the employer. The General Counsel, in support of his contention that the roving pickets are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act because they "dealt with" em- ployees concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, cites an instance gleaned from the testimony of J. A. Murphy, State police sergeant, and Willard Mitchell, post commander of the State police, at Hazard, Kentucky, as to events occurring during the first week of October, when they accompanied groups of pickets led by Howell and Gibson on visits to various mines. On October 2, a group of about 150 pickets, accom- panied by Murphy, visited a mine tipple in Kodak "for a few minutes," and then disbursed for the day. On October 3, they assembled at the Miners' Memorial Hospital in Hazard, in Perry County, and went from there to the Kenmont Coal Company mine at Drift. There, a delegation of three men beaded by Gibson and escorted by Murphy broke off from the larger group and went up to the tipple "to talk to the members." There were six employees and the delegation asked them to join the pickets. None did. On October 4, Murphy accompanied the same group of pickets from their assembly point at the Hazard Hospital to the A. C. Riddle mine, in Knott County. There was a private property sign about a mile and a half from the mine and Murphy stopped the group there while a delegation of four, accompanied by a trooper, went to the top of the hill and "talked to the workers up there." From there the group went to the Walters' mine where a delegation of 12, led by Lee Howell and accompanied by Murphy went to the entrance of the mine. There Howell asked Walters if he would call the men out of the mine so that the delegation could talk to them. Walters acceded to the request and sent a messenger into the mine. While waiting for the miners to emerge, Howell asked Walters "if he would like to work his men under a U.M.W. contract." Walters said he would not, and this was all that was said between them When the miners ap- peared, Howell asked them if they would work under a UMW contract, and they all said they would not. The delegation then left. Murphy was with the group again on the following day, but could remember nothing "of any significance." On the next day, October 6, the pickets assembled at the Hazard Hospital numbered about 300. They drove in cars and trucks to the Smith Coal Company mine at Combs, Kentucky. There the caravan parked at the property line and a delegation led by Gibson went up to the tipple and "talked to the employees." LOCAL UNION NO. 8505, ETC ., DISTRICT 30, UMW 657 Sergeant Murphy traveled with the roving pickets every day until the latter part of October, and he kept a logbook in which he and Sergeant Mitchell made entries every night to see that they had "all the entries in there that should be in," and from which he refreshed his memory while testifying. He recounted incidents and instances in addition to the above, but they related for the most part to mass picketing and threats of violence. All the conversations from which information can be derived as to with whom the pickets were dealing, whether with the mine operators or the miners, are set forth above. From Murphy's testimony as to events taking place over a period of several weeks covering several counties, and involving several hundred individual roving pickets and their spokesmen, the General Counsel, in his brief, selects for citation in support of his contention that the roving pickets "dealt with" employees, only the occurrence on October 4, at the Walters' mine, where Howell, while waiting for the miners to come up out of the mine so that he might talk with them, asked Walters, in an aside, if he would like to work under a UMW contract. Willard Mitchell, post commander of the State police at Hazard, who accompanied groups of roving pickets practically every day in Perry County, testified to events similar to those related by Murphy. The General Counsel's brief erroneously states that Mitchell "observed that at the various installations, the pickets discussed with the operators wages, welfare and hospital cards." Mitchell's testimony, however, was the contrary: Q. Now, were you present when any of these men talked to any of the men or the coal operators? A. Yes, sir, I was present. * * * * * Q. On these occasions that they would talk to an operator what would they talk about? A. When they talked to the men? Q. Yes. A. Wages, welfare, hospital cards. [Emphasis supplied.] There is nothing in Mitchell's testimony, similar in all essentials to that of Murphy, that the roving pickets on any occasion talked with the mine operators about wages, welfare, or hospital cards, grievances, or any other condition of em- ployment. Nor is there any convincing testimony by mine operators themselves that they did. The consistent practice was to ask the operators for leave to speak to the pickets. This was almost the entire burden of the conversations between the pickets and the operators. An exception should perhaps be made of the events at the Charlie Combs' mine. Combs, in addition to operating the Jenny Lind Coal Com- pany and the Grand Coal Company, is sheriff of Perry County. According to Post Commander Mitchell, when the roving pickets visited Combs' property during the first week in October, they used abusive language to Mine Operator Combs, who, as Sheriff Combs of Perry County, arrested several of 'them. Combs, also, along with his deputies, was a daily traveler with the roving pickets in Perry County. His testimony, however, like that of Murphy and Mitchell, is to the effect that the pickets talked with the miners, not to the operators. Ira Combs, superintendent of the Kenmont Coal Company, however, testified that in October 1962, when a group of roving pickets visited the Kenmont mine, Howell, who led the group, asked him to shut down his tipple in order to force the companies to pay the 40 cents a ton royalty, and he said he could not do that. Combs had no authority to shut down the mine or to act for the Company in any respect pertaining to wages, hours, or welfare benefits. When the pickets left a location, usually a short while after arriving, no picket was left behind. Hence, such operations as did shut down while the pickets were present, frequently, if not as a rule, resumed operations upon their departure. In December 1962 and January 1963, two or three meetings took place between representatives of the roving pickets and representatives of the mine operators, at which the termination of the picketing was discussed. Each of these meetings was instigated by the operators, and not by the pickets. One meeting, that was on December 7, seem to have resulted in the cessation of picketing in Pike County. While during the course of the meeting the conditions which had brought about the picketing were discussed but only in general terms. No suggestion, request, or offer pertaining to the welfare fund or wages, hours, or other specific working con- ditions, was made by either the operators or the pickets. Such a general discussion, limited to the cessation of picgeting, and brought about by the operators, not by the pickets, cannot be said to be evidence that the roving pickets existed "for the pur- pose of dealing with employers." 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Most of the record in this case, aside from evidence designed to show that the roving pickets are labor organizations, is taken up with the asserted blocking of ingress to and egress from mine property, and threats and acts of violence to mine employees, by the roving pickets in contravention of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. I make no finding on these matters in view of my conclusions, hereinafter drawn. B. Conclusions 1. As to Respondent Local Unions There is no evidence in this record that Respondent Locals Nos. 8505, 8915, 5899, 7788, or 8161, or any of them, directly or indirectly financed or aided by any mate- rial means the activities of the various persons named in the complaint as their agents, or so aided either of the two groups of roving pickets. The groups were financed solely by the contributions and assistance of individual miners and members of the general public. Neither is there any evidence that any local union permitted the use of its meeting place or other facilities by any of its alleged agents or by the roving pickets. Nor is there discernible any moral support afforded by the roving pickets by ways which suggest themselves, such as the circulation of literature, assistance in procuring meeting places, or the use of communications media such as television or radio, though each was used from time to time by the roving pickets, or by the passage of resolutions in local meetings. The only evidence of any connection between Respondent Local Unions and Re- spondent roving pickets is (1) that many of the roving pickets, but by no means all, were at one time or another members of the United Mine Workers and hence, per- force, members of its local organizations including those named as Respondents; and (2) that certain officers of Respondent Locals were active among the roving pickets. It is upon the second ground that the General Counsel relies to establish the re- sponsibility of Respondent Locals. Hence, since Odell Cavins, a mine committee- man in Local No. 7788 was present at the first meeting of the roving pickets at the McDowell High School on September 6, and Roy Carver, Wayne Griffith, and Ray Tackett, presidents, respectively, of Respondent Locals Nos. 8161, 7788, and 8805, were present at the second meeting on September 12 at the same place, and since Jim Thornsberry, president of Local No. 5899, collected money for the roving pickets and presented it at a meeting of pickets, it follows, in the General Counsel's rationale, that Respondent Locals Nos. 8805, 5899, 7788, and 8161 are responsible for their activities and hence for the unfair labor practices said to have been com- mitted by the two groups of roving pickets in which these persons were active .3 There is no evidence that any officer of Respondent Local No 8915 was present at the second meeting of the roving pickets on September 12. The presidents of the other Respondent Locals, though they were present and later became active in the roving pickets, specifically stated to the meeting that although they would help in any way they could they would be doing so as individuals, and not as local officers. I am unable to believe that they forfeited forever their right to act as individuals when they were elected to union office. In my opinion the idea that Respondent Locals are automatically bound by the activities of certain of its officers, in the absence of other evidence of agency, is fallacious. There is no room in it for spontaneous, individual, causation. It is noteworthy that Howell, the acknowl- edged leader of one group of roving pickets, was not only not an officer of any local union but, according to his own testimony, had not been a member of the UMW since 1940, and that Gibson, the acknowledged leader of the other group, was not an officer of any local union and does not appear even to have been a member of any of the Respondent Locals. As has been stated the picketing was prompted by the sudden cancellation of the welfare program as to persons employed in mines which failed to pay the 40-cent royalty as provided in the UMW contract. Most, though not all, of these pickets were or had been members of the United Mine Workers, and many if not most of them personally affected by the cancellation of the welfare benefits. They needed no urging from their local unions to protest 4 3 On the General Counsel's theory of the case, it is difficult to understand why District 30 should not be named as a respondent since a charge was filed as to it (as well as to the United Mine Workers) and since, as the General Counsel's brief relates, C E. Beane, president of District 30, also addressed the meeting on September 0 at which Cavins spoke. * There Is, In fact, some Indication that the picketing was contrary to the wishes of the officials of some of the locals, as well as to the wishes of District 30. LOCAL UNION NO. 8505, ETC ., DISTRICT 30, UMW 659 The record shows that there are various UMW locals in eastern Kentucky not named in the complaint . I can only conclude that they are not named because investigation did not reveal that any of their officers were active among the roving pickets, and hence do not conform to the General Counsel 's theory of the case. I regard that theory as Procrustean . It seems to me more likely that the officers of some locals, as well as many rank-and-file miners, did not take part in the picketing simply because they were not employed in mines which were defaulting in the pay- ment of welfare benefits, and so were not personally moved to protest, and that officers of other locals who were affected personally or felt themselves threatened, did take part. The complaint names only a few of them . I have difficulty believing in a conspiracy where so many eligible conspirators are absent. 2. As to Respondents roving pickets The primary question to be decided here is whether the two groups of roving pickets were labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. That they were organizations of some sort is apparent . Though amorphous, they were identifiable groups with leaders, and though they had no regular meeting place or time they nevertheless did meet and they did function in a coherent fashion. But whatever kind of organization they may have been , they were not labor organizations within the meamng of the Act unless they existed "for the purpose in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work." The critical words here are- "dealing with employers ." It is apparent from this record that the pickets made no attempt to bargain with mineowners concerning wages or other conditions of employment , that they were not authorized to do so, that they did not have the necessary expertise, and that , in any event, the United Mine Workers was their bargaining representative with an existing contract with most of the mines. But "dealing with " is a broader term than "bargaining with," as the Supreme Court pointed out in Cabot Carbon,5 where the Court held to be a labor organization a plant committee which, although it did not attempt to negotiate a contract, nevertheless did make to the employer proposals and requests concerning such matters as seniority , job classification, job bidding, work schedules, wage cor- rections, and other working conditions , in meetings at which the employer's plant officials participated in the discussion of these matters and frequently granted the committee's requests. It may be conceded that for an organization to "deal with" an employer it need not go to the extent the committee did in Cabot Carbon . But there must be at least some attempt to discuss or treat with the employer, or to persuade or petition him. There was nothing of the sort here. The testimony of General Counsel's own witness, Police Officers Murphy and Mitchell , the most circumstantial in the record, fails to show any attempt by the roving pickets or their spokesmen to persuade the mine operators to any course of action whatever , or even to discuss with them matters of wages or other working conditions . Their evidence makes it clear that the whole thrust of the pickets' activity was toward the employees themselves. It is not much short of being literally true that the pickets talked with the mine oper- ators only to ask them for permission to speak to their employees . Isolated instances of vague suggestions that wages should be higher or that general working conditions in the coalfields should be improved , in some unspecified way at some unappointed time and by some unnamed agency, are not sufficient to show a purpose to deal with employers concerning the matters enumerated in the definition in Section 2(5) of the Act. For the definition defines a "labor organization" not as one which in fact deals with employers , but one which exists for the purpose of dealing with them Occasional "dealing" is not enough (even if it existed here ) unless it is so widespread as to lead reasonably , as a matter of evidence, to the conclusion that this was the purpose of its existence. The complaint should be dismissed upon all the above grounds. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 1. Respondent Local Unions Nos. 8505, 8915, 5899, 7788 and 8161 , District 30, United Mine Workers of America, have not violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act 2. Respondent roving pickets (group A) and Respondent roving pickets (group B) are not labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 5 N L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Company and Cabot Shops, Inc., 360 U S 203 , reversing 256 F. 2d 281 (117 NLRB 1633) 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the consolidated complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety. International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local #84, AFL-CIO [The Edward R. Hart Company], Respondent and Randall Lutz, Charging Party International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 484, AFL-CIO [The Edward R. Hart Company], Respondent and John R. Lutz, Charging Party. Cases Nos. 8-CB-680-1 and 8-CB-680-2. April 6, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On August 6, 1963, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 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 Inter- mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications noted herein. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Local operated an exclusive hiring system in an unlawful fashion by placing only local members' names on the register for referral and clearing other persons only after all members of Respondent Local were em- ployed, and that it thereby violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. 2. Randall and John Lutz applied for work in Akron, Ohio, to Riddle, secretary of The Edward R. Hart Company, at a time when job openings were available and were told to secure a clearance from Rice, Respondent's business agent. When Riddle, on behalf of the two brothers, requested that Rice clear them, Rice stated that he did 'Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record . the exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 146 NLRB No. 85.