Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local Union 327

84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local Union 327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Coca- Cola Bottling Works of Nashville. Case 26-CB-500 - June 30, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On February 17, 1970, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion . The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief . The Charg- ing Party also filed cross-exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER* Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local Union 327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Nashville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order as so modified: 1. Substitute the following language for para- graph 1: "Cease and desist from restraining or coercing employees of Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nash- ville, or any other employer within Respondent's territorial jurisdiction as defined hereafter, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, by threatening to cause harm to em- ployees or the families of employees of said compa- nies; by assaulting the employees of said compa- nies ; by blocking ingress to the plant to the em- ployees of said companies, or striking or rocking the cars of employees of said companies; by cutting tires of employees of said companies; by causing or threatening to cause damage to the property of said companies; or in any other manner restraining or coercing said employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Respondent's territorial jurisdic- tion, according to its constitution and bylaws, is halfway between Local 327, located at Nashville, Tennessee, and its sister locals which include, inter alia, locals in Louisville and Paducah, Kentucky, and Knoxville and Memphis, Tennessee, and in- cludes that territory encompassed and bounded by: the Alabama state line on the south; the Tennessee River on the west; the Kentucky state line on the north; and the foot of the Cumberland Mountains (west of Crossville) on the east." 2.- Modify the first and second indented para- graph of the notice to conform to the language of the modified Order set out above. * This Order modified by Ruling on Motion and Supplemental Order of August 26, 1971 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE J. BOTT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge of unfair labor practices filed on October 3, 1969, by Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, herein called Employer or Charging Party, against Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local Union 327, affiliated with International Brother- hood of teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & helpers of America, herein called Union or Respon- dent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing dated October 17, 1969, which he amended on November 12, 1969. The complaint, as amended, alleged that Respondent Union had engaged in numerous violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Respondent filed an answer, and a hearing was held before me in Nashville, Tennessee, on November 19 and 20, 1969, at which all parties were represented. Sub- sequent to the hearing, all parties filed briefs which have been considered. 184 NLRB No. 10 TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 85 Upon the entire record' in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD The Employer's principal place of business is in Nashville, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of soft drinks. During the 12-month period prior to the issuance of the complaint, the Employer received at its Nash- ville operation items valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Tennessee. I find that the Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning *of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Setting and the Issues During the Union's attempt to organize the Em- ployer's plant in Nashville, the Union authorized a strike and picketing, in which a substantial number of employees accompanied by some of the Union's business representatives participated. The strike began early in the morning of September 29, 1969, and was still current at the time of the hearing in this case. In addition to picketing in front of the Employer's premises, the Union admittedly fol- lowed the Employer's trucks to the premises of other employers and picketed there. The complaint alleges that during the course of these activities the Union, by its business representatives and by em- ployee agents, named as such in the complaint, made threats and engaged in other acts of intimida- tion in violation of the Act. In addition, Respondent is alleged to have threatened and intimidated em- ployees of the Employer by the actions of certain striking employees which occurred away from the plant and not during the course of ambulatory picketing. The Union, although conceding that cer- tain incidents described in the complaint did occur, contends that there is insufficient proof of identifi- cation to sustain a finding that the persons named in the complaint committed the acts and that, in any case, there is no showing of agency relationship between the Union and the individuals identified as having committed the acts. The case involves serious credibility problems arising out of a series of similar and dissimilar acts which began on September 29 and continued to November 3, 1969. With the exception of the in- cidents which occurred while trucks were being fol- lowed and picketed, which seem to lend themselves to separate treatment, for the Union concedes that it authorized and participated in such picketing, the other events cannot be logically grouped, and so a chronological treatment is as good as any other. B. Incidents Occurring in Connection with Picketing at the Premises of Other Employers 1. Destruction of property at Giant Foods Store On September 29, 1969, the first day of the strike, Gilliam a route salesman, and his supervisor, Weiss, arrived at the Giant Foods Store in the 100 Oaks Shopping Center and began to unload cases of Coca-Cola for delivery. I credit their testimony that a Plymouth Road Runner carrying six strikers appeared. Included in the group were Bobby Read, D. Cox, B. Cox, Hanford, Gooch, and Alvie Wil- liams. Someone in the group stated that Gilliam and Weiss should not be delivering, but should join the strikers. Bobby Read told Weiss that he had been discharged and intended to get back to work "one way or the other." Both Weiss and Gilliam in- dicated that they intended to go on working, and the strikers then began picketing in the vicinity of the truck as Weiss and Gilliam entered the store. While Weiss and Gilliam were in the store they were warned by a driver for another company that something was happening outside. They left the store and found that the pickets had all left, but that a substantial number of cases of Coca-Colas had been removed from the truck and the bottles broken. According to them, they had been away from the truck for between 2 and 10 minutes. Bobby Read admitted that he was at the Giant Food Store when Gillaim and Weiss were there. He said he asked the store manager not to buy Coca- Cola and when the request was refused, he and others began picketing, but left the area as soon as Gilliam and Weiss entered the store. Although there were a number of other strikers with him, he could not remember the names of any of them. He denied that he had broken any bottles and said he saw no one else involved in any such activity. Although one cannot be certain that Read per- sonally removed any merchandise from the truck while Gilliam and Weiss were away for a short period, I am convinced that one or more of the six pickets did and that Read knew it. His failure to re- member' the name of even one of his companions was particularly unimpressive. I find that the Coca- Colas were removed and smashed by the pickets during Gilliam's and Weiss' brief absence and that all pickets present, engaged in a common cause, were responsible. I General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is hereby granted 427-835 0 - 74 - 7 86 2. Incidents at Vanderbilt University Hospital occurring in connection with the following of trucks and ambulatory picketing John Fann and Curtis Durham testified credibly that when they left the plant in one of the trucks on September 30, in the morning, headed for Van- derbilt University Hospital, three cars fell in behind them. One car, a black and white Pontiac, was driven by Gerald Vestal, one of Respondent's busi- ness representatives, and the other two contained striking employees. When the Coca-Cola truck stopped for a red light, Vestal drove his car in front of it and blocked it from making a right turn. Fann and Durham returned to the plant and when they left again that morning they were led by a police car and trailed by Thomas Colbert, Respondent's sales manager, in his car. When Fann and Curtis arrived at Vanderbilt Hospital and parked their truck at the dock in order to unload, they observed the white Pontiac and another car in the parking lot. Soon they were approached by strikers Piper, Trauernicht, Charles Reed, and Duke, and a conversation about the strike began. Charles Reed did not testify, but Fann testified credibly that, while the group was talking, Reed went to the other side of the parked truck. Two cases of drinks were pulled from the truck. Fann did not see Reed touch the truck, but he saw him run out the entrance to the hospital . Durham testified credibly that he actually saw Reed remove the cases and run back to the Pontiac, which had now pulled into the parking lot. Fann and Durham remained at the hospital after this incident attempting to service the customer, but within a short time the white Pontiac appeared again and five men got out and, after telling the drivers that they should not be delivering, pulled 50 or more cases of beverages from the trucks to the ground breaking most of the containers . Durham testified that he recognized the men as strikers Chamberlain, Robinson, R. Duke, Charles Reed, and Samuel Smith . Fann agreed that Reed, Duke, and Chamberlain were present, and he said that he learned later that the other two were Samuel Smith and Robinson. Colbert, the Employer's sales manager , who had followed Fann and Durham to Vanderbilt, observed Vestal's Pontiac in the parking lot. The driver of the Pontiac parked within 3 feet of Colbert's car and two men got out, but Vestal and Piper, a striker, remained in the car. One of the men, who Colbert later learned was a striker, hit one of his car windows with his hand and then attempted to open the back door. Both men then proceeded to rock Colbert's car for a brief period before they returned to Vestal's car and left the area. Colbert remained awhile and he saw Vestal return and place Charles Reed and striker Payne on picket duty before construction work that was being done near the hospital entrance. Morris Davis, a security guard at Vanderbilt, testified that he saw a white Pontiac on the hospital premises shortly after the first incident involving Fann and Durham's truck. Later the Pontiac returned and was parked near the entrance to the hospital. Five men got out and, after telling the Respondent's drivers that they should not be work- ing, dragged cases of Coca-Cola from the truck and threw them to the ground. Davis got the license number of the Pontiac and walked back toward the men. As he did, they ran past him, got in the Pon- tiac, and left. Daniel Piper, a salesman , joined the strike on the first day, but said he abandoned it under the follow- ing circumstances on the second. He testified that on the first day of the strike James Craighead, one of Respondent's business representatives in charge of the strike, at the suggestion of an unidentified striker, turned off a valve which controls the flow of carbon dioxide into the plant and stated that "if everything was going like it was that morning ... they would blow the tank up that night." The group to which Craighead was addressing these remarks then walked to Vestal's car where, Piper said, Vestal tried to get a striker to volunteer to blow up the tank that night, but no one in the group of 25 or 30 would do so. Craighead and Vestal denied Piper's account about the tank and the dynamite. Craighead said he did not know what or where the valve was, and Vestal said he had never seen a stick of dynamite in his life. Although I discredit Vestal in other respects, and although I feel that Craighead con- cealed the extent of his knowledge about what was happening while trucks were being followed and picketed during the strike, I was impressed by their denials of Piper's testimony in this area . Both men struck me as intelligent . Although, unfortunately, dynamiting has occurred during strikes, it would seem extraordinarily stupid or insane for two busi- ness representatives to announce their plans and solicit volunteers for the task from a group of 30 or 40 men in front of the plant. I find that Piper's testimony in this respect is incredible. Piper, however, went to Vanderbilt University Hospital with Vestal to picket Fann and Durham's truck on September 30, and I credit his testimony, because it is amply corroborated by others and fits with other facts, that when they got to the hospital parking lot two men rocked Colbert's car while Vestal sat in his car and laughingly observed their actions; Vestal parked behind Trauernicht's car, another striker, and placed pickets outside the con- struction site in front of the hospital ; Piper spoke with Fann and Durham and while he did, Charles Reed went to the other side of the truck with other strikers; all but Reed returned ; and Piper heard glass breaking and saw Reed run. I do not credit Piper's testimony that, after they reached the hospital entrance and parked, Vestal told him and others to take cases from the truck and smash the bottles, or that Vestal reprimanded him "for not doing his part," meaning not breaking DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 87 any bottles, when he teturned to. Vestal's car. Neither do I credit his testimony that, when the strikers returned to the plant where they regularly picketed, Vestal gathered 8 or 10 of them together and lectured them that they all were "going to start taking your part in all this stuff" and begin "Picket- ing trucks, picketing the plant, cutting tires and putting trucks out of commission." And, moreover, they "might have to start beating up on peoples' heads, shooting people and shooting peoples' houses." Nor do I credit his testimony that Vestal referred to another strike in which persons were shot at and trucks overturned as an example for the employees in the Coca-Cola strike to follow, and then assurred the group that it need not worry about getting caught because the Union would bail them out. Vestal denied that he instructed em- ployees to destroy the Employer's property and de- nied that he had given the advice to a group of em- ployees in front of the plant which Piper said he did. Although Piper said that a substantial number of employees were present, he is uncorroborated. Again, I do not believe that Vestal would make a public announcement and confession of such a heinous program unless he was out of his mind, or trying to lose the strike, or hoping to get the Union enjoined. Vestal's denial seemed credible, and Piper seemed to be a little too enthusiastic, even in delivery. It was Craighead's and Vestal's revelations that gave Piper second thoughts about his involve- ment in the strike, and he said he went back home, and in a few days returned to work. Although no one can be certain what motivated Piper, I feel that some rationalization on his part has gone on, and this is a further reason why I do not accept his testimony except where other safeguards are present. Charles Reed, who was seen running from the truck parked at Vanderbilt after the first incident, did not testify. Robinson, who according to Fann and Durham participated in the second incident, testified that he went to Vanderbilt University on one occasion in his own car following a Coca-Cola truck, but when he arrived he drove on by and returned to the plant. He said he was not at the scene with Vestal and knew nothing about drinks being destroyed. Samuel Smith, a striker, testified that he was not at Vanderbilt Hospital during the strike. Ray Duke testified that he and Charles Reed went to Vanderbilt in Reed 's car and that only the two of them rode together. He found the Coca-Cola truck at the loading dock and picketed in its vicini- ty with other employees, whose names he said he did not know, for 30 to 45 minutes . When he left, the truck was still there, he said, but he saw no bot- tles broken while he was there. Duke said he did not see Vestal in the area. Gerald Vestal, one of the Union's business representatives active in running the strike, con- ceded that he was at Vanderbilt on September 30 after following one of the Employer's trucks. His purpose was to picket, he said. Piper was with him, and he thought Duke was too, but he was not sure. He said that as he arrived at the location two other carloads of strikers joined them, and they then picketed the entrance to the hospital for about 2 hours while a Coca-Cola truck was present. Since the picketing was ineffective, according to Vestal, he told all the pickets to leave. He knew of no breakage of Coca-Colas, and maintained that he first learned about it when it was published in the local newspapers. I find that a substantial amount of property damage was done by strikers who were assigned to picket at Vanderbilt Hospital by Vestal and other union officials, and that some of them were trans- ported there by Vestal. I also find that some of the strikers engaged Fann and Durham in conversation and attempted to persuade them not to deliver. When the drivers refused the request, I find that some of the strikers, who had gone to the hospital to picket, destroyed cases of Coca-Colas in an ef- fort to intimidate employees of the Employer and to put pressure on the Employer and those who traded with him. Some of the strikers named by Durham and Fann as having been present did not testify, and I find, in any case, that Robinson was present despite his denial and that he and Ray Duke, who admittedly was engaged in picketing for almost an hour, were aware that cases of drinks had been dragged from the truck and smashed. I also find on the basis of the credible testimony of Fann and Durham that Charles Reed, in the presence of other strikers, removed some cases of drinks from the truck during the first incident and then ran to Vestal's car, and that he also participated with other strikers, including Chamberlain, Robinson, and Duke, during the second incident in removing more cases of drinks from the truck and destroying them.2 Although I have not found that Vestal directed Piper and others to destroy bottles, I find that he could not have avoided knowing that property had been destroyed when he summoned the pickets (his testimony), or when they fled to his car after the damage ( Fann 's and Davis' testimony), and returned to the plant to continue picketing at the principal situs of the dispute. I also find, on the basis of Colbert's testimony corroborated by Piper, that two persons, one a striker, who had been trans- ported by Vestal to the hospital area, harassed Col- bert in Piper's presence by striking Colbert's car, rocking it, and otherwise tampering with it, while Vestal sat in his car and watched. ' The complaint names Gary Smith as an agent of the Union in this affair, but there is no evidence that he was present Samuel Smith denied that he was there , and I have sufficient doubt that he was to make a finding on it Bobby Reed denied that he was present and , although he is named in the complaint, there is no evidence that he was Without casting any shadows on Fann 's and Durham 's identifications, it is quite possible that, in the excitement, they may have placed a striking employee at the scene when in fact it may have been someplace else 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Destruction of r property at the H. G. Hill store On October 1, Fann and Durham arrived at the H. G. Hill store at Thompson Lane and Mur- freesboro Road and found Hames Moore, a striker, talking to the manager, asking him not to buy Coca-Cola. The manager refused Moore's request, and Fann and Durham went to the truck to begin unloading. Durham testified credibly that, when he reached the dock, strikers Moore, Phillips, Shelton, and two other persons were parked close to the truck. As Durham and Fann began to wheel cases into the store they heard cases falling off the truck and glass breaking. Both said, and I credit their testimony, that they turned and saw Moore bent in front of the truck with a knife in his hand. Durham saw Moore move to one side of the truck and heard air escaping. Moore then proceeded to pull wires from under the dash board. Fann and Durham described the damage as a severed brake fluid line and radiator hose, and the pulled wires. In addition, five cases of drinks had been removed from the truck and their contents destroyed. After the damage had been done the strikers entered the car that had been parked next to the truck and left, but in a very short time the car reappeared, and one of the occupants shot an object with a slingshot hitting the truck. Moore was the only striker named by Fann and Durham as having-been at the H. G. Hill store who testified. Moore conceded that he went there with a group of other persons, whose identities he could not recall, to ask the manager of the store not to buy Coca-Colas. He said he spent 30 minutes or more in the store while the manager checked with other persons on Moore's request and the other employees picketed the store. Moore said he saw no cases removed from the truck, and he denied that he had damaged any equipment as Fann and Durham had testified. I have already indicated that Fann and Durham were credible witnesses. On the other hand, Moore seemed to be evasive in any area where striker and union responsibility for misconduct might be involved. Examples of this were his failure to recall the name of even one of the other pickets present at the store, ignorance about where the men got the picket signs, where and from whom they received instructions about following trucks and picketing, and his lack of re- call of when, where, and how many times he had been in Bobby Read's car, as will be noted again below in regard to an alleged assault committed by Read. I find, therefore, that the truck was damaged and tampered with during the picketing while Moore and other strikers were present; Moore was seen near the truck with a knife in his hand and was responsible, at least in part, for whatever damage was done; the drinks were removed from the truck and broken by pickets and Moore knew about it; and an object was propelled at the truck by one of the pickets. 4. Incident at the H. G. Hill store at Due West Avenue and Gallatin Road Albert Walls, a route salesman , was servicing the H. G. Hill store on September 30 around 10:30 a.m. with two other salesmen when he heard ob- jects hitting the building and glass breaking on top of the truck. He said he observed two figures on an overpass, one of whom he recognized as Paul Hi- land, a striker. Walls urged Hiland to come down if he had anything to say, but Hiland drew back on a slingshot and fired a glass ball at the truck. Walls said that there were many of these objects around the vehicle. Ervin, one of the other salesmen present, testified that he heard glass breaking as he was returning to the truck making a delivery and heard Walls shout at two men whom he could not recognize. Hiland testified that he was not at that particular store at 10:30 a.m., September 30, but was miles away talking with a WSM photographer after hav- ing picketed another store of a different company in a different area. He said, that as far as he could recall, he had never been at the H. G. Hill store in question in connection with the strike and certainly not when Walls was there. He denied shooting at anyone at any time with anything. Aside from hav- ing been arrested on a warrant sworn out by Walls, he has never been arrested for anything before. Hiland gave an affidavit to the Board during the investigation of this case about his alleged par- ticipation in this incident, but it contains nothing about him being elsewhere when someone shot a glass ball at the truck. Hiland first stated that he did not think that he mentioned his alibi to the Board agent, but he also said that he told him that he was elsewhere, but not where he actually was. Accord- ing to him, although he told the investigator that he was elsewhere and knew where it was, the agent neglected to put it in the statement. I do not credit this version, and I find that Hiland was where Walls said he was, participating in shooting glass balls at one of the Employer's trucks at the H. G. Hill store. 5. Damage to property in connection with a delivery at Dixie Bi-Rite Route Manager Burger and Route Salesman Breshears were followed to the Dixie Bi-Rite store on September 30 by two carloads of strikers. As they stopped for a stop sign just before entering the store's lot, some one pulled cases off the truck and both men heard them hit the ground. Breshears testified that he looked back and saw David Collins, a striker, run back and get in one of the cars that was following them. After the truck was driven onto the store lot and parked, both cars entered and unloaded 10 or 12 men, including strikers Mitchell, Warner, and Moore. According to Burger, Mitchell entered the store and Warner and Moore proceeded to open the side doors of the truck and remove and smash a TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 89 number of cases of drinks . Breshears added that Collins was in the vicinity of the smashed bottles, and that Warner had asked him if he had sold many cokes before he went to the other side of the truck. After he did, Breshears heard a crash and, when he investigated , found five cases on the ground and Collins, Moore , and Warner standing around. The mirror of the truck had also been bent and a side vent broken , but Breshears did not see it done. Burger said he saw Warner break the vent with some object. Martin Wallace, manager of the Bi-Rite store, testified that he saw the above incident and that, after the bottles were smashed and the window broken by the men who got out of the cars, a per- son who identified himself as a representative of Local 327 entered the store and asked him not to buy Coca-Cola. This person had alighted from one of the cars and returned to it after talking with Wal- lace. A short time later while Wallace was cleaning up the debris, one of the cars involved in the first incident drove by and a piece of pipe was thrown at the truck narrowly missing Wallace. Warner admitted that he was driven to Bi-Rite on September 30 with an employee named Climer, and that Mitchell, Moore , and others , whose names he could not remember, were also present. He said Mitchell asked the manager not to buy Coca-Colas and when Mitchell advised the strikers that the manager had agreed not to , they all left the scene, having picketed for only 10 minutes . Warner saw no bottles broken or any property damage, he said. James Moore testified that he "may have been" at the Bi-Rite store on September 30 and seen Burger and a route supervisor there . His only pur- pose in going there was to request the manager not to patronize Coca-Cola and to picket the store if he refused . No Coca-Cola cases were removed from the truck while he was there , Moore said. There can be no question that cases of Coca- Colas were smashed while the pickets were present, for Wallace , Burger, and Breshears were there when it happened . The presence of the pickets and the brief period of time during which the damage was done would be enough to sustain the logical in- ference that only the pickets could have been responsible , and I so find . In addition, I rely on the credited and composite testimony of Breshears, Burger, and Wallace that Warner, Collins, and Moore actively participated in the removal of beverage cases, that Warner broke a window vent, and that one of the pickets threw a heavy object at the truck as they were leaving the area. C. Other Alleged Incidents Constituting Restraint and Coercion in Violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act 1. September 29, 1969 Sam Burnett was the first driver to leave the plant to make deliveries on September 29. 1 find in accord with his credible testimony that a dozen or so strikers gathered near his vehicle when he stopped for traffic and a number of cases of Coca- Cola were removed from his truck . Although Bur- nett recognized a number of strikers he was only able to identify Bobby Read as a participant in the vandalism . Read admitted taking one case from the truck. I find that the incident occurred as Burnett described it, and that Read participated in the destruction of beverages in the presence of a sub- stantial number of other strikers. The Garrett brothers arrived at the plant between 8:30 and 9 a.m. in two trucks to pick up trash as they did every morning. Enoch Garrett was in the lead truck , and strikers stopped him to talk with him. One of the strikers told him they were on strike and one of them said they were "playing for keeps." Another told him to come back another day if he wanted broken glass, for there would be a lot of it on the street after bottles were thrown from the trucks. Sometime during this exchange , Enoch's brother Donald , in the second truck to the rear, sounded the horn , and Enoch saw a man step away from the rear of the truck he was driving. Donald Garrett blew the horn to warn his brother because he saw a person approach the rear of the truck and saw on a tire with a knife for about 10 seconds . The effort seemed unsuccessful , and the person then punched at the tire with the knife. Just as Enoch heard the warning and got out of his truck a policeman appeared and apprehended the man with the knife. Captain Raymond Marler of the Metro Police Department saw a person with an open knife cutting on the back tire of the Garrett truck and ar- rested him. The person identified himself as "Jerry Vestal." Vestal admitted that he approached the truck when the pickets stopped it to talk with the driver, and that he had an open knife in his hand . His ex- planation for the knife was that he had been whit- tling previously and had neglected to close it. He denied cutting or coming in contact with the tire. The witnesses who testified that Vestal was cutting at a tire told a simple , unadorned story, but Vestal's account of his actions is unbelievable. I find that Vestal sawed on the tire in an attempt to prevent the Garretts from entering the plant and that his conduct occurred in the presence of a sub- stantial number of strikers . I do not find however that he made the statement "playing for keeps" as alleged in the complaint. Raymond Sanders arrived at the plant on Sep- tember 29 around noon to get his paycheck. He testified that Craighead , a union business represen- tative, approached him and , after asking him where he was going and being given the reason, told him that he "could sign this card and then ( he)could go in." Sanders said he signed a union card for Craighead , but did not read it . He also said he did not know who Craighead was at the time and did not know that it was a union card when he signed 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD it. It appears from his testimony that he learned who Craighead was from someone else, and that his supervisor explained to him that he had signed a union card when he told him what happened after he entered the plant. Craighead could not remember Raymond San- ders, but he said he asked many employees to sign union cards that morning, and he denied that he had told any of them that they could not enter the plant until they signed a union card. My recollection of and reading of Sanders' ver- sion of this incident leads me to conclude that he was not particularly sure about what Craighead ac- tually said to him. Under cross-examination, for ex- ample, he added that Craighead explained why he should sign a union card, stating that if he did not he would not have a job when the Union obtained recognition. I find that Craighead did not tell the employee that he could not enter the plant unless he signed a union card.3 Sanders left the plant at noon and went to a near- by restaurant for lunch where he met Wilson, another employee. While the two were eating, Gary Smith, a striking employee, joined them. According to Sanders and Wilson, Smith asked them if they had signed union cards. Wilson told Smith that he had not, and explained why. He said Smith told him that he was crazy because the Union was one of the best things that could happen, and that sooner or later it would be recognized and Wilson would be out of a job. Sanders said that Smith stated during the conversation that Wilson ought to sign up, because if he did not he could be beaten up "or anything could happen" to him. Wilson told Smith that he was not concerned, but he said Smith added that a "bunch of high ranking men from Chicago" would come down and they were "going to take care of everything." Gary Smith did not testify, and I find that his conversation with the employees was essentially as they described it. 2. September 30, 1969 On the second day of the strike as Sales Manager Colbert was leaving the plant in his car, Warner, one of the pickets, threw coffee or cocoa at the window on the driver's side. He also said that something "or someone" hit the other side of the car and that Business Representative Vestal was in the group of the strikers. Daniel Piper, who was on strike for 2 days, testified that he saw Warner throw the coffee at the window and heard the noise of someone kicking the car. He said Vestal was on the side opposite him. Vestal testified, and although he did not refer to the testimony about his kicking a car, both he and Warner denied that any coffee or liquid was thrown at Colbert's vehicle. I credit Colbert's testimony, 'The complaint alleges the violation as telling employees that "they must sign a union authorization card before they may enter the premises " and find that he saw Warner empty a cup of liquid on his car. I do this without relying on Piper's testimony, for I thought Warner was less persuasive than Colbert. I do not find that either Colbert or Piper made a sufficient identification of Vestal as the person who was responsible for "thumping" or kicking the auto, although I do find that he was present in the group. 3. October 1, 1969 Production Manager Craven testified that on the morning of October 1 a McClendon Truck Line driver delivered a load of bottles to the plant. Craven went out to let the truck in and heard Craighead ask the driver not to cross the picket line. The driver indicated that he was going to deliver, and Craven opened the plant door. At that point, a group of strikers gathered in back of the truck and prevented it from entering for about 10 minutes. As the front of the vehicle gradually ap- proached the entrance, Craven overheard Craighead tell the driver that "they'd get him later on the road," and also advise the pickets that they should not let the driver cross their picket line. The McClendon driver was not called as a wit- ness. Craighead conceded that he spoke to drivers who were making deliveries and asked them not to deliver, but he denied threatening anyone who was delivering merchandise. He was unable to recall the specific incident described by Craven. In this instance I am satisfied that Craven's recol- lection is better than Craighead's. I find that Craighead, in the presence of strikers, threatened the McClendon driver with something unpleasant if he performed services for his employer and also in- structed the strikers to attempt to prevent the driver from entering the Employer's premises. It appears that the Employer obtained a court in- junction restricting some of the Union's activities shortly after the strike began. Raymond Sanders was at the plant on October 1 in the afternoon and heard Craighead discussing the recently issued in- junction with a group of strikers. According to San- ders, Craighead said that the injunction "had a lot of loopholes in it, and it didn't mean too much." Craighead then advised the strikers not to "do anything ... around the plant" but to "do it away from the plant." Also, according to Sanders, in reference to the injunction, Craighead mentioned another strike in which the 'Union had been in- volved where thousands of gallons of milk had been spilled by strikers. Craighead noted that although the Company in that case "took them to court," the court found the Union not guilty. Sanders stated that Craighead then gave other examples of how union pressure had worn down other employers and concluded that "This is what we are going to have to do to the Coca-Cola Company. We are going to It is even questionable that Sanders ' version "he told me I could sign this card and then I could go in" contains a threat TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS have to wear them down." Sanders also said that at that point one of the female strikers stated that she was going to "beat hell" out of a nonstriker, but Craighead warned her not to do it around the Em- ployer's premises, having prefaced his warning, however, by stating that the employee could do anything she wanted elsewhere. Sanders also re- called Craighead saying something at this time about strikers telephoning him if they "get caught" and promising to "get (them) out." Craighead testified that he spoke with the strikers three or four times a day on the picket line during the first few days of the strike "with reference to their behavior." He admitted telling the group that the Union would "wear" the Employer down, but he said he amplified this to describe how it would be done. In essence, he said he told strikers that the Employer would be "worn down" by picketing and boycotting the Employer's products. He denied referring to a milk strike where milk was dumped by the Union, and stated that the Union had not been involved directly in such a strike. The above evidence provided by Sanders was of- fered not to prove a separate violation of the Act but to show that the Union encouraged acts of violence on the part of strikers. Again I find that Sanders was not completely sure about exactly what Craighead said, what he meant, or in what frame of reference he uttered his remarks. On the other hand, it seems clear to me that Craighead did not recall everything he said, and later rationalized to make everything he said in those undoubtedly confusing days conform with accepted practice. That Sanders was uncertain appears from his state- ments that he did not know what Craighead and a group of strikers were discussing when Craighead told them to telephone him if they "got caught," that when Craighead was explaining about the court injunction, he said that the strikers "could go ahead and keep doing what we had been doing," but Sanders did not know what the strikers had been doing and Craighead could have been talking about anything. Moreover, Sanders, like Craighead, stated that in regard to "wearing" the Employer down, Craighead had been talking about "stopping trucks, picketing the building with signs, and stuff like this," but that he did not say "fighting or anything." On the other hand , Sanders continued to credibly maintain that in the frame of reference about milk being dumped, Craighead indicated that such was the type of thing a union had to do to win, and he appeared very certain that Craighead made a distinction between violence on the picket line and violence away from the plant. I do not accept Sanders' version completely, but I am convinced , and I find that there was a discus- sion about violence near the plant , about violence in another strike, about picketing and boycotting, and about a bail. Although I do not find in these statements an incitement to violence , I find that the Union took a tolerant position about violence, either on a union or individual level, during strikes, & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 91 and did little to discourage the employees from en- gaging in improper incidents which often naturally occur in heated strikes. This is more significant in the light of the fact that admittedly it was during these talks that Craighead and others were advising strikers about how they should behave and outlin- ing the Union's strategy designed to win the strike. 4. October 4, 1969 John Fann and William Breshears, route salesmen, drove to work together in Fann's car on October 4. Fann testified that as he entered the plant entrance with his car windows rolled down, Craighead, who was standing in the alley on the driver's side, said, "If you get home tonight you'll be lucky," or something to that effect. Fann said he could not recall Craighead's exact words. Breshears testified that he, too, could not re- member the exact words, but Craighead said "something ... like," "I hope you make it home," and may have used the word "tonight." Breshears also said that Craighead's remarks had something to do with "being alive tonight." Craighead could not remember Fann or Breshears by name, but said that although he asked many drivers to join the strike, he could not recall telling any driver that he hoped "they'd make it home okay." In my opinion, Breshears did not hear as much as he said he did and also interpreted what he did hear to add and include the "being alive tonight" re- mark. I have previously found Fann to be accurate and truthful, and I was impressed by his simple and low-keyed version of what Craighead said without any attempt to make it sound worse than it was. I am inclined to credit him again over Craighead's weak and indefinite explanation . I find that Craighead made a remark to the drivers which in- dicated, and was so designed, that there was a per- sonal risk involved in crossing the picket line. 5. October 6, 1969 As Route Salesmen Sam Burnett and C. H. Wil- liams were leaving the plant in a company truck on October 6, 1969, they said Bobby Read, a striker, made a remark to them. Burnett said Read said, "Sam, we are going to have to go after the girls." According to Williams, Read stated, "We are going to get your women next." Nothing else was said, and they drove off. Both men are married, and the somewhat cryptic remark, which Read denied mak- ing, is supposed to have been a threat to involve the wives of the drivers in the strike in some unpleasant way. Burnett and Williams struck me as sincere and reliable, and I find that a remark was made by Read to the effect that "girls" or "women" would be ap- proached by the Union next in some way. 6. October 20, 1969 Raymond Sanders continued to work during the strike, and as he was going home on October 20 92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and passing a cafe approximately a block from the plant, two men came out of the cafe and one yelled something at Sanders, but he did not stop. The two men ran after Sanders, and he stopped. The taller of the two asked Sanders if he was working at the Coca-Cola Company, and Sanders said he was. After another remark or two, the shorter person hit Sanders with his fist in the face. The assailants then told Sanders not to come to work the next day or something worse would happen to him. Sanders promised that he would not.' Sanders telephoned the plant and a car was sent for him. When he got to the plant, Jones, plant su- perintendent, had Sanders look out a plant window at a group of strikers gathered outside. Sanders pointed to two of the men as his attackers, and Jones told him they were Samuel Smith and Bobby Samuals. Plant Superintendent Jones confirmed Sanders' testimony and added that he had known both men as employees for several years. Samuel Smith has been on strike since the beginning and has picketed at the plant and fol- lowed trucks. He knows Bobby Samuals, and he agreed that he frequented the cafe near the plant, but he said he did not know Sanders. Smith had no recollection of being with Samuals at a time when Samuals stopped any employee to talk to him, but he denied that he had seen Samuals strike anyone. Smith conceded that he had been picketing at the plant on October 20. Bobby Samuals testified that he was at the plant picketing on October 20, and he denied striking or seeing Smith strike any employee that day or any other day. He said he did not know Sanders, but he recalled that once during the strike he approached a nonstriker in front of the cafe near the plant and, after making sure he was a nonstriker, told him "he should be on strike with us." On this occasion, however, Smith was not with him, he said. I have previously evaluated Sanders' testimony in a different context and found that, inexperienced and unversed as he is in strike and labor problems, his account of exactly what Craighead said to him and to a group of strikers could not be fully ac- cepted, but there is no question at all in my mind that he was attacked as he said he was and that he was able to pick out Smith and Samuals as his assai- lants shortly thereafter.' I find, on the basis of the credited testimony of Sanders, Dickerson, and Jones, that both Smith and Samuals interfered with Sanders' attempt to leave the plant peaceably, that both men threatened him with reprisals, and that Samuals, the short man with the goatee, assaulted him. 7. October 23, 1969 Donald Stephens, 17 years old, had been em- ployed by the Company for a very brief period be- fore the strike and continued to work during the strike . He testified that on October 23 while walk- ing near the plant on his way to connect with a ride home, Bobby Read , James Moore, and two other persons, whose faces he could not see , rode past him in a gold colored Plymouth Road Runner, and one of the persons shouted at him, asking him where he got the coat he was wearing ( referring to the Coca-Cola coat ). Stephens said he kept walking and, as he was crossing a bridge about a mile or so away, was struck by a bottle thrown from the same car. He looked up and saw Read and Moore in the car which had now passed him. Stephens said he did not know the men by name but had seen them in the plant. On the next day when he reported the incident to the Company he was shown films of strikers, and he picked out Moore and Read as par- ticipants in the bottle -throwing incident . Plant Su- perintendent Jones corroborated his testimony about identifying Read and Moore from pictures shown him in the plant. Approximately one-half hour before Stephens left the plant , and, if believed , was followed by Moore and Read, Gary Lyons, Robert Wilson, and three other nonstrikers left the plant and crossed the street to reach the car of one of them parked nearby . As they did, according to Lyons and Wil- son, a Plymouth Road Runner appeared and one of the occupants shouted at them through a bull horn. After they reached their car and left the lot they were followed by the people in the Plymouth. Lyons testified that when they reached the business district of Nashville and stopped for a traffic light, he was struck in the face with an object . Lyons was seated in the back seat with the windows down. He said he turned and saw Bobby Read standing at the back bumper of their car , with a bottle in his hand, and James Moore standing outside the Plymouth near the door. Wilson corroborated Lyons in essentials. He added that when they drove away from the parking lot and were followed, he saw Billy Cox , Moore, and Read in the Plymouth . He said he saw Moore get out of the car at the traffic light and saw Read hit Lyons on the face with a bottle. Nothing was said to the strikers by the group in the car which Wilson was driving , and the strikers left immediate- ly. Neither Wilson nor Lyons knew all persons in the strikers' car. Wilson said he knew Billy Cox and picked Moore and Read out of films shown him the next day at the plant . Lyons also said he knew that the driver was Cox, and that he identified the others when he was shown films with Wilson. Su- perintendent Jones , who was present at the film showing, testified that Wilson and Lyons were able to identify persons involved in the incident whom he then named as Cox, Moore, and Read. ' The fact of the assault is really beyond question for it was witnessed by S. M Dickerson , an employee of the board of education and a disinterested witness s His statement that he would not forget the face of the man who hit him for a thousand dollars was particularly impressive TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 93 Read denied that he struck Lyons with a bottle, and said he was not present at the location where the incident took place . He also testified that he was not at the scene where a bottle was thrown at Stephens, and he said that he did not throw a bottle at anyone or see one thrown . He admitted owner- ship of the Plymouth Road Runner and conceded that it was frequently driven by other strikers, in- cluding Cox and Moore . Moore testified that he had never ridden down Church Street in a car with Cox and Read , which was where the assault on Lyons allegedly took place , and he also denied that he had followed a car from the plant accompanied by Cox and Read. Read and Moore were clearly evasive in their testimony about the use of Read's Plymouth and about who drove in it. They clearly were attempting to cover up something . It may be that Moore was covering for Read , or Read for Cox, who did not testify . In any event, I have no reason to discredit the testimony of Stephens, Lyons , and Wilson that assaults took place, for I can see no possible reason for them to have separately contrived their stories. Despite a lingering uneasiness about the reliability of identifications made in the presence of high su- pervisors from pictures of strikers taken by the Em- ployer, I have no doubt from their testimony that Stephens , Lyons, and Wilson did select three strikers from the films as persons involved in the in- cidents, and I see no possible reason why Jones or others would have taken the risk of telling the three that the persons they had picked out were Cox, Read , and Moore , if they were not. I find therefore that, in the course of following nonstrikers from the plant, Cox, Read, and Moore were involved in at- tacks on the persons of nonstrikers. 8. November 3, 1969 Early in the morning of November 3 a McClen- don Company truck arrived at the Coca-Cola plant with a load of material . The driver went to sleep in his cab, and Frank LaMay, a security guard sup- plied to Coca-Cola by a private company, promised to wake him around 6 a.m. LaMay testified that, at approximately 5:45 a.m., a picket , whose name he did not know at the time , slapped the door of the truck and asked the driver if he did not know that Coca-Cola was on strike. LaMay, who was about 15 feet away at the time, said he heard the driver reply that his company was not on strike and the picket responded to this by asking the driver if he had a family in Alabama. According to LaMay, the driver "apparently " said he had, and the picket then stated that if the driver wanted to see his family again he should not unload his truck . This caused the driver to roll his window down and ask the picket if he were threatening him and his family, to which the picket replied, in effect, that he could take it like that , and added , according to LaMay, who noted that he could not remember the entire conversation , the threat that "You or the truck either one won't make it out of the State of Tennes- see if you unload." After his exchange with the driver, the picket walked over to LaMay and called him a "scab guard, " but LaMay made no reply. Shortly after this, he said he learned that the picket was Miller, when he identified himself as such to Jones, plant superintendent. LaMay said that , around 6 : 15 a.m., the then unknown picket who threatened the Mc- Clendon driver was speaking to a group of pickets and advising them not to "speak to Coke em- ployees" but also instructing them , if Coca-Cola employees spoke to them , "to slap them , just walk up and knock the employees ." Jones then asked the speaker who he was and he replied that "his name was Bill Miller, official representative of Local 327." Bill Miller did not testify , but neither was the Mc- Clendon truckdriver called , and although Jones testified , there is nothing in his testimony about Miller revealing his identity to him in LaMay's presence. Miller may be an " agent" of Respondent, but Craighead testified without contradiction that he is not a business representative , but is hired to "watch" the pickets and "see that nothing goes wrong" on the picket line , particularly when regu- lar business representatives are not present. In Craighead's words, Miller is "more of a picket cap- tain" who functions as such wherever the Union is involved in a strike. Despite the fact that LaMay 's testimony is unde- nied, I am reluctant to credit it, not only because the McClendon driver and Jones did not cor- roborate it, even though they were key participants in the morning's events , but also because I felt at the time , and still feel after reading the testimony, that LaMay exaggerated what he heard , or said he heard . For example , he was 15 feet away from the driver-picket conversation , which makes it questionable that he heard such fine details, and it seems unlikely that Miller , with his experience, would threaten a driver 's life in the presence of a company guard , and then, to insure that the guard would not forget him, walk over and call him a scab, and later on in the morning , after telling the pickets publicly to attack nonstrikers , proclaim "himself as Bill Miller , official from Local 327." I also think it of some significance that Miller's name appears no where else in the testimony of some 25 witnesses called by the General Counsel. The testimony will not be relied on. D. Analysis , Additional Findings , and Conclusions 1. The Union's responsibility I have found that practically all of the acts or statements alleged in the complaint , as amended, as violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act did occur substantially as testified to by witnesses for the General Counsel. Under that section of the Act it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization 94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or its agents to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to refrain from engaging in a strike or other concerted activities.6 The principal question remaining, however, since the facts have been found essentially as alleged, is the responsibili- ty of the Union for the acts or statements of pickets and strikers, who, unlike Craighead and Vestal, union business representatives and admitted agents, the Union contends have not been shown in the record to have any agency relationship with Respondent. Under the law and the cases, a union's responsi- bility for acts, such as those which have been found, is judged in accordance with the "ordinary law of agency," and it is liable for the acts of an agent "within the scope of the agent's general authority, or the `scope of his employment' . even though the (union) has not specifically authorized or indeed may have specifically forbid- den the act in question."' It is enough if the prin- cipal actually empowered the agent to represent him in the general area within which the agent acted.' The Act itself provides in Section 2(13) that the "question of whether the specific acts per- formed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling," and the Board has held that "authorization or ratification may be manifested by conduct, sometimes even passive acquiescence as well as by words."9 In the light of these principles it is clear that the Respondent Union is responsible for the acts of the strikers committed in the course of following trucks and picketing at the premises of the Employer's customers. Ambulatory or roving situs picketing is an established technique in labor disputes and does not offend the policies of the Act if conducted within the "rules of the game." 10 Business Representative Craighead testified that the Union followed as many trucks as it could, and that the trucks were picketed with as many pickets available as they were making deliveries. Customers were also asked by the strikers not to patronize Coca- Cola. Picket signs were prepared by the Union and furnished the pickets. Both Craighead and Vestal visited merchants and asked them not to buy the Employer's products, and the record shows that Vestal transported many pickets in his car to the premises of secondary employers and was close to the pickets when cases of Coca-Cola were destroyed at Vanderbilt University Hospital during the strike. Indeed, I have found that he knew what the strikers had done there. It appears, therefore, that following trucks, picketing at the customers' premises, and appeals to them were union ventures and, legally and in fact, an extension of the Union's primary picket line. It is well known that in authorized strikes unions are normally responsible for the acts of authorized pickets." Threats and the employment of force on a picket line, even though forbidden, are reasonably to be expected, and so "within the scope of employment of pickets for which the labor organization is responsible. "12 I find that the destruction of Coca-Cola, damage to trucks, and harassment of nonstriking drivers by roving pickets were also reasonably to be expected and within the scope of employment of the pickets. This would be so even if the Union had made some effort to prevent it, but neither Craighead nor Vestal made any investigation of the incidents, or disciplined, reprimanded, or removed any striker from the area because of his activities. On the con- trary, I have found on the basis of that part of San- ders' testimony which I have credited that Craighead spoke to strikers about a milk strike where milk had been dumped and took a generally tolerant attitude about the activities of strikers, par- ticularly away from the plant, and, in addition, threatened and interfered with a driver who was making a delivery. Vestal did less in instructing strikers than Craighead did, as well as condoning the destruction of property at Vanderbilt.13 His at- titude about what strikers should and should not do during a strike was illustrated by his participation in the Vanderbilt incidents, including his amused ob- servation of Colbert's car being rocked, and his at- tempt to cut a tire on the Garrett truck in the presence of a group of strikers. I find and conclude that the Union is legally responsible for the acts of strikers and pickets at the following locations, as alleged in the complaint. a. Giant Foods Store in 100 Oaks Shopping Center in Nashville, on September 29. b. Vanderbilt University Hospital in Nashville on September 30. c. The H. G. Hill Store at Thompson Lane and Murfreesboro Road in Nashville, on October 1. d. H. G. Hill Store at Due West Avenue and Gallatin Road in Nashville, on September 30. e. Dixie Bi-Rite Store at Glen Rose and Foster Streets in Nashville, on September 30. ° International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union C 10 (Sun- set Line and Twine Company ), 79 NLRB 1487 Sunset Line and Twine , supra, 1507, 1509, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No 377, 159 NLRB 1313 "Perry Norvell Company, 80 NLRB 225, 243-244, Sunset Line and Twine Company , supra, 1509 ° Sunset Line and Twine, supra, 1508 10 See N L R B v Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (K-C Refrigeration Transport Co ), 284 F 2d 887 (C A 2), Local 379, Building Material & Excavators, alw Teamsters ( Catalano Bros , Inc ), 175 NLRB 459, Perry Norvell Company, supra, 239 " Local 612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc (Deacon Truck Line, Inc ), 146 NLRB 498, 503 1t United Furniture Workers of America, CIO (Colonial Hardwood Floor- ing Company , Inc ), 84 NLRB 563, 587-588 " Drivers, Salesmen , Warehousemen, etc Local 695, IBT (Tony Pellitteri Trucking Service , Inc ), 174 NLRB 753 TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 95 By such conduct, Respondent Union restrained and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. For the same reasons I find that Respondent vio- lated the Act when Bobby Read, a regular picket who also engaged in roving picketing, participated in removing cases of Coca-Cola from one of the Employer's trucks in the presence of other em- ployees at the plant on September 29. Acts committed by authorized business agents of the Union which restrain and coerce employees are clear violations, of course, and I find that Gerald Vestal's cutting at the tire of the Garretts' truck, on the morning of September 29, in the presence of a group of strikers, and his participation in the in- cidents involving rocking and attempting to enter Colbert's car at Vanderbilt University, on Sep- tember 30, in the presence of strikers, were addi- tional violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Craighead's remark to a McClendon Company truckdriver, who insisted upon making a delivery despite Craighead's request not to, that "they'd get him later on the road" was obviously designed to frighten the driver, and this statement and Craighead's participation with the strikers in blocking ingress to the plant were additional viola- tions of the same section. For the same reasons, Respondent violated the Act by Craighead's state- ment to Route Salesmen Fann and Breshears on October 4, as they entered the plant, to the effect that they would be "lucky" if they got home safely that night. Bobby Read's statement to nonstriking Route Salesmen Burnett and Williams as they left the plant on October 6 that "we" are going after the "women" or "girls" next is somewhat obscure, but Read denied making it, and no explanation of what the words meant, or could have meant, was offered. Nevertheless, in the context of this heated strike, and in the light of some of Read's and the Union's other activities, the remark is not so cryptic that it shakes my conviction that it was designed to instill fear in the minds of the drivers about the safety of their families. This was restraint and coercion in violation of the Act. Bobby Samuals and Samuel Smith, who were regular pickets, followed employee Sanders from the plant and threatened him with additional reprisals after one of the two assaulted him. This was not a "frolic and detour" on their own, for they immediately returned to the picket line and, in any case, the activity took place close enough to plant to -make it part of the activity in which they were regularly engaged. By such conduct, the Union vio- lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. If, in the context of this case, the strikers had thrown bottles at nonstrikers as they left the plant, the violation would be obvious. It is no less clear that when Read and Moore followed Stephens in Read's Plymouth Road Runner from the immediate area of the plant, where they had been picketing and shouting at employees through a bull horn, and threw a bottle at him, that they were merely con- tinuing the harrassment they had been engaged in at the plant and elsewhere. Read and Moore appear frequently in this case in Read's Plymouth at and around the plant harassing nonstrikers, as in this in- stance, and as in Wilson's and Lyons' cases, as desceibed next, as well as at the premises of other employers, as found above. I see nothing to indicate when Read and Moore followed Stephens and someone hurled a bottle at him from Read's car that these strikers were engaged in an independent operation. The Union's responsibility for the assault on Lyons is even clearer. Here the testimony trails the Plymouth, containing Read, Moore, and Cox, from the plant, to the parking lot, and then in its pursuit of the nonstrikers to the area where the assault took place. I find that the Union, by its agents, Moore, Read, and Cox, acting within the scope of their employment, restrained and coerced em- ployees in violation of the Act, by said agents con- duct in regard to Stephens and Lyons. 2. Incidents or responsibility not established by a preponderance of the evidence Having found that Craighead did not tell Raymond Sanders that he could not enter the plant unless he signed a union card, I find no restraint and coercion in the conversation as alleged in the complaint. Sanders and Wilson had a conversation with Gary Smith during lunch at a cafe near the plant during which Smith told Wilson that he could be beaten up because he did not sign a card. The line is fine, but this conversation, it seems to me, was a matter solely between three rank-and-file em- ployees and not authorized, ratified, or condoned by the Union. Gary Smith picketed, but he does not stand out like others whose activities I have found bind the Union. I find that the Union did not violate the Act by reason of his statements. Because , as set out more fully above, I have found certain infirmities in LaMay's testimony and in the circumstances surrounding his account of Miller's alleged threats to a McClendon truckdriver, I find no violation in this incident as the complaint alleged. Striker Warner splashed, or threw, a cup of cof- fee or cocoa at Colvert's car window as he left the plant. Vestal, the Union's business representative, did not see it, and I find the incident too insignifi- cant in the circumstances to constitute separate violations of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec- tion III, above, occurring in connection with the Employer's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- 96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL tionship 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 has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it will be recom- mended that it cease and desit therefrom and take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. In Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers Local Union No . 327 (Whale, Inc.), 178 NLRB 422, the Board took official notice of the Respondent's "proclivity to engage in mass picket- ing, picket line violence, and threats of violence" as demonstrated in prior cases . N The Board con- cluded in Whale, Inc., supra, that in view of the conduct under consideration and in past cases, a broad order against the Respondent and its agents was warranted . Although Respondent Union reduced the level of its attack somewhat in this case , the conduct which it engaged in here is not unlike its conduct in previous cases. I will recom- mend to the Board, therefore , that it issue an order of the type it issued in Whale, Inc. The General Counsel and the Charging Party have also asked that the Respondent Union be required to publish the Board notice both in Nash- ville Banner and the Nashville Tennessean because the local newspapers gave continuing coverage of the Union's misconduct during the strike. The Board has yet to issue a broad order against this Respondent which has been backed up by a court decree . The question of wider publication , it seems to me, ought to be postponed until the effectiveness of a broad order enforced by court decree is tested. I will not recommend publication of the notice in newspapers.15 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. Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. " Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers, Local Union 327 (Hartmann Luggage Company ), 173 NLRB 1420 In N L R B v Teamsters, Local 327 ( Hartmann Luggage Company ), 419 F 2d 1282 (C A 6), the court of appeals agreed that the Board could take judicial notice of its own cases involving the same union and held that there was substantial evidence "on the whole record to justify the Board's finding that the union had demonstrated a proclivity to engage in violent conduct ," and that the Board, therefore , might be justified in issuing a broad order not limited to union activity at the particular employer involved The court remanded the case to the Board , however, because it thought the order violated the provi- sions of Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure In Hartmann Luggage, the Board 's Order applied to employers within the union's "ju- risdictional territory ," which was not defined, and this was not specific enough , the court said In Whale, Inc , however, the Board dropped that limitation The court also felt that the order was defective since it was not limited in time and because it was "both too broad and too vague in rela- tion to persons expected to obey it " It seems to me that a time limitation is LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in the conduct found to be viola- tions of the Act set forth in section III, D, above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Respondent, its of- ficers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing employees of Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nash- ville, or any other employer in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, by threatening to cause harm to employees or the families of employees of said companies; by assault- ing the employees of said companies; by blocking ingress to the plant to the employees of said compa- nies, or striking or rocking the cars of employees of said companies; by cutting tires of employees of said companies; by causing or threatening to cause damage to the property of said companies, or in any other manner restraining or coercing said em- ployees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix"" to each of its members and post co- pies thereof at its business office and meeting hall. Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed by the Union's official representative shall, immediately upon receipt thereof, be mailed to each member, posted and maintained for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. something too difficult to tailor in advance, but must be determined by the Respondent 's future conduct As far as those against whom the order runs is concerned, the Board in Whale, Inc , did not include "successors and as- signs" in the order which were the words which the court found objectiona- ble See, however, Regal Knitwear Company v N L R B, 324 U S 9 15 The Trial Examiner denied a similar request in Whale, Inc , supra - 16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 97 (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 26, for postings by Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville at all lo- cations where notices to employees are customarily posted, if said company is willing to do so. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act not specifically found herein. " 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten to cause harm to em- ployees or the families of employees of Coca- Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, or any other employer; or assault employees of said compa- nies. WE WILL NOT block ingress to the plant of said company or any other employer, strike or rock cars, or cut the tires of employees of said company, or any other employer. WE WILL NOT cause or threaten to cause damage to the property of said company, or any other employer. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, or the employees of any other employer in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS, LOCAL UNION 327, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.