International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO and Elsing Manufacturing Co. Case 16-CB-496 October 31, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On June 8, 1970, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommend- ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter the Respondent and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National 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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 1 The Charging Party has excepted to the failure of the Trial Examiner to make a specific finding of violations by mass picketing. A review of the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision indicates that the Respondent did engage in mass picketing, which resulted in the blocking of ingress and egress to the plant. This conduct occurred on the morning of November 19, 1969, when the vehicle of Bill Bunch was halted by a group of 40 pickets. Within a short period of time thereafter, several other vehicles were similarly halted. On the morning of December 1, 1969, this conduct was again repeated, when approximately 50 to 55 pickets halted several vehicles attempting to enter the plant. We note that the Trial Examiner has provided a full remedy for such violations in his Recommended Order and Notice. 2 These findings and conclusions are based, in part, upon credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted. The Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence . Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing those findings. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARTIN S. BENNETT, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard at McAlester, Oklahoma, on February 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, and 24, 1970. The complaint, issued January 8, 1970, and based upon a charge filed November 24, 1969, by Elsing Manufacturing Co., herein the Employer, alleges that Respondent Union, International Ladies' Garment Work- ers' Union, AFL-CIO, had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Briefs have been submitted by all parties. The Charging Party has also asked that notice be taken that on April 24, 1970, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma in a Section 10(j) proceeding, enjoined the alleged conduct in essence litigated herein. The findings below are made solely upon the record litigated before me. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Elsing Manufacturing Co. is an Oklahoma corporation operating two plants in McAlester, Oklahoma, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of ladies' clothing. The Employer annually purchases and directly receives goods and materials from points outside the State of Oklahoma valued in excess of $50,000 and likewise sells and ships products valued in excess of said amount directly to points outside that State. I find that the operations of the Employer affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction; the Issue A strike under the auspices of the Union was commenced by the Employer's previously unorganized employees on November 19, 1969, and is still current. Much of the activity litigated herein took place at the plants, each of which is approached by a driveway from the highway with official picket lines established at these locations. The cutting room plant is approached by a 20-foot wide gate some 40 feet back from the highway. The entrance to the main plant is by a road which bridges a culvert as it leaves the highway which is approximately 35 feet wide at that point. At issue herein are a number of allegations including picket line violence, assaults upon nonstrikers, damage to 186 NLRB No. 54 INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION 343 vehicles of nonstrikers and related incidents. There is a marked conflict in the respective versions. The testimony of the witnesses for the General Counsel reflects aggravated assaults and at times a Donnybrook. The version of the witnesses for Respondent reflects a pastoral and serene scene with pickets set upon by nonstrikers.' Some incidents took place away from the picket line and, as will appear, agency and union responsibility is established. A majority but not all of the incidents litigated will be set forth for, in my view, the evidence becomes cumulative and the flavor is substantially established by those detailed below. B. Agency and Union Responsibility Mrs. Jerry Jackson is a full-time paid organizer for Respondent Union and was assigned to the stake prior to November 19, 1969. Eva Chambers has an identical position and commenced strike duty on November 20. Other organizers were on the scene and, as Chambers admitted, there was usually more than one organizer on duty each day. John Curtis is also an organizer who was on the scene daily, at least in the early days of the strike. Glen Clay and Frank Pierce are respectively assistant director and manager of the Union's local region and were in overall supervision of the strike. Only Jackson and Chambers testified herein. Jackson admitted that she supervised the pickets, explaining her duties as "just about anything that pertained to the picket line." The inference is well warranted on this record that Chambers had equal authority. A union meeting was held the night before the strike by Clay and Jackson; I find that Organizer Curtis was also present. Jackson denied that the subject of picket captains was discussed. Gerald Sellers was a striker for 4 to 5 days, attended three union meetings and then returned to work. He testified, and I find, that the topic of picket captains was discussed at a meeting the following morning. He claimed that he attended a meeting at 9 a.m. on November 19, the first day of the strike, at which they were addressed by Clay and Organizer Curtis with Organizer Jackson not in attendance on this occasion. He stated that Clay named four picket captains to be in charge of the pickets signing in for duty. He recalled only the names of Luella King and Bernice Pink; the latter figures prominently in the incidents set forth below. While Jackson, whose memory was not impressive herein, claimed at one point that Pink was not a captain, she admitted that Pink could have so functioned. And while it is claimed that picket captains were not named for 2 weeks, it was conceded that Brenda Scherman was a picket captain sometime during the week commencing November 19. Jackson, although later backing away, admitted that it is the duty of captains to keep records of those who serve on I It is true that conduct by agents of the Employer was the subject of a complaint in a CA case which was settled Certain of the incidents were developed herein in an effort by Respondent to establish that they provoked counter measures by Respondent Union or the strikers The incidents treated below were divorced in time from this other conduct. While it is understandable that one may return a punch, this is not the case here because there is a distinct dichotomy in time and one type of misconduct as such does not warrant unrelated conduct of the type the picket line and to make a record of any picket line incident. It may be noted that pickets were paid $30 a week strike pay commencing the third week of the strike. Organizer Chambers deprecated the role of the captain, but initially admitted that captains write down and turn in reports of all picket line incidents. She admitted that a captain is one "who knows the people needed to assume a little responsibility." She initially also asserted that the captain recorded the names so that pickets could obtain stake pay and also had the duty to keep in touch with them. She later shaded this by claiming that the pickets would receive the pay even if the captains failed to record their names.2 The record discloses that Jackson was injured at the picket line on November 19 and absent for about I week thereafter. It also discloses that Union Organizer Curtis, as Gerald Sellers uncontrovertedly testified, was present at the picket line at the main plant every morning from November 19 or 20 on until Sellers returned to work. I find that all picket lines were officially authorized and that union organizers were regularly in attendance. Indeed, Organizer Jackson participated in incidents both at the picket line and elsewhere. Responsibility of Respondent for the conduct of Jackson and Chambers is clear, particularly so in the absence of any disavowal thereof. While I do not rely on the fact per se that Respondent provided legal counsel for strikers involved in incidents, the fact is that it knew thereof and repudiated none of it. As for the picket captains, I find their conduct attributable to Respondent. Indeed Pink, as will appear, engaged in certain incidents in the presence of Jackson and other strikers without repudiation. While there is evidence that strikers were told to conduct themselves peacefully, the fact that organizers acted otherwise along with picket captains was manifestly a demonstration to rank-and-file employees that nonpeaceful conduct was acceptable and even desirable if necessary to accomplish strike objectives. I find that in all of the incidents set forth below union responsibility is established upon a preponderance of the evidence. See N.L.R.B. v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers Local 327 [Hartmann Luggage Co.] 419 F.2d 1282 (C.A. 6) enfg. 173 NLRB No. 220; N.L.R.B. v. Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters, 387 F.2d 170 (C.A. 2) Teamsters Local 738 (Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Louisville), 160 NLRB 1776; United Mine Workers District 2 (Solar Fuel Co.), 176 NLRB No. 178; Teamsters Local 115 (E.J. Lavino and Co.), 157 NLRB 1637; and United Furniture Workers of America AFL-CIO (Jamestown Sterling Corp.), 139 NLRB 1279. C. Restraint and Coercion 1. The Jewell Johnson incident At 7 a.m. on November 19, the first day of the strike, developed herein. 2 Striker Ruby Eldridge testified, in an attempt to refute Sellers, that she attended a union meeting on November 19 and that Clay did not name captains However, the meeting she attended was in the evening and the testimony of Sellers places the meeting at 9 a.m Eldridge also admitted that the topic of captains had been discussed prior to the stake I therefore credit Sellers herein 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jewell Johnson started to drive her truck into the driveway at the main plant. Pickets surrounded her car and she stopped in order to avoid striking them. Organizer Jackson invited her to join the strikers and Johnson declined. Jackson, in response, reached through the open window and snatched the eye glasses Johnson was wearing. Johnson requested their return and Jackson turned to the strikers and asked if anyone had seen Johnson wear glasses. Johnson rejected Jackson's invitation to fight with the strikers and was ultimately permitted to enter. At the end of the day, Johnson found the glasses in the rear of her pickup truck. During the time the Johnson vehicle was forcibly stopped by the pickets for approximately 10 minutes,3 the pickets beat the car with signs and kicked it. Captain Bernice Pink jerked the rear license plate down and both she and Jackson kicked at it in an ostensible effort to break it off; other pickets threw stones at the vehicle. I find that the snatching of the glasses, halting the car, throwing of rocks, and beating on the car, to say the least, constituted restraint and coercion by the Union within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.4 2. The Blevins incident A vehicle driven by Sonny Blevins, with his sister Janet and mother Rosella, as passengers, was next in line to enter behind the Johnson vehicle on November 19. After that car was permitted to enter, the pickets similarly nonpeaceful and in the presence of Jackson and Pink, turned their attention to the Blevins vehicle. The car was promptly surrounded, preventing entry without striking pickets stationed in front of the car. Striker Brenda Scherman slit a plastic rear window with a sharp instrument. The Blevins car was stopped for approximately 10 minutes during which time the pickets, still in the presence of Jackson and Pink, beat upon, kicked the car and also threw rocks at it, inflicting dents therein. I find that the blocking of the car, beating on the car, throwing of rocks and slitting of the rear window constituted restraint and coercion.5 3. The Bill Bunch incident Bill Bunch entered the plant without incident at 6:45 a.m. on November 19. Initially, his vehicle was surrounded by 40 strikers, he rejected Jackson's offer to join the strikers and she then directed the strikers to permit him to enter because he was a supervisor. At 8 or 8:30, he and Personnel Manager William SanMillan left on an errand in a company truck and returned shortly thereafter. As they entered the driveway, Striker Alan Mitchell, in the presence of other strikers, struck the windshield with a piece of lumber measuring I by 2 and approximately 3 feet in length. The stick shattered, although the windshield did not. Jackson and Captain Pink were present. I find that this assault constituted restraint and coercion .6 3 I find that if Johnson had proceeded she would have injured the pickets. This I equate with forcibly stopping the vehicle. Indeed, the striking of pickets by a moving car was the subject of the CA charge and was relied upon herein by Respondent Union. 4 These findings are based upon the mutually corroborative testimony of Johnson; Janet Blevins, a passenger in a car about to enter the plant; and that of her mother Rosella also a passenger in that car. 4. The Ethel Effinger incident At approximately 9 a.m. on November 19, Bunch and SanMillan left the main plant and proceeded to the cutting room plant to pick up some fabric. They discovered that the 20 foot wide gate was shut with a chain, not provided by the Employer, looped through the center where the two halves met. According to the testimony of Bunch and SanMillan, which I credit, Bunch stopped the vehicle and SanMillan got out and started to remove the chain from the gate. As he did so, Striker Ethel Effinger came to the gate and grasped his arm in an effort to prevent this move by him. SanMillan shoved her aside and Effinger renewed her efforts. SanMillan ultimately pushed her aside, opened the gate and the vehicle entered. Effinger testified that Jackson had authorized her to picket at this location. She admitted telling SanMillan that he would not open the gate and contended that truck continued to advance and struck her. The simple answer is that Effinger admitted grabbing the arm of SanMillan at the center of the gate and I find that she attempted to interfere with the progress of the vehicle into the plant. While Effinger had the right to picket peacefully, she did not have the right to forcibly interfere with the progress of the vehicle and she did precisely that. Effinger was in front of the car through her own volition and deliberately placed herself in a position of peril. Assuming, on her version, which I do not credit, that she was struck by the car, SanMillan was equally vulnerable herein, hardly a move that driver Bunch would undertake. I find that Bunch did not attempt to injure Effinger on this occasion. Needless to say, the picket line is far removed from a tea party, but the fact is that Effinger took the initiative here in an effort to interfere with the entry of the company vehicle. I find that this effort to prevent the opening of the gate constituted restraint and coercion. 5. The Bernard and Smart incident Immediately after the Blevins car was permitted to pass into the parking area, Production Manager Leon Bernard and a machinist, D. Smart, started to leave the premises in a company van. They were compelled to stop because of pickets in their path. The pickets opened the van door and Captain Pink attempted, unsuccessfully, to pull Smart from the vehicle. I find that this assault constituted restraint and coercion.? 6. Nails in the driveway Danny Hall, not an employee, frequently takes his wife to and from work with the Employer. He observed the following conduct on an afternoon he placed between the start of the strike, November 19, and December 4. Hall was passing the plant and, because of congestion, 5 This finding is based upon the mutually corroborative testimony of Janet and Rosella Blevins. Jackson, in essence , generally denied all violence and Pink and Scherman did not testify. 6 This finding is based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Bunch; Mitchell did not testify. r This finding is predicated upon the uncontroverted testimony of Janet Blevins. INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION slowed down to a speed of approximately 5 miles per hour while on his way to a pickup spot to collect his wife. The picket line was operating and Organizer Chambers was standing near the open trunk of her car across the highway from the picket line. As Hall testified, he saw Chambers handing roofing nails to strikers who then proceeded to the picket line. He withstood a searching cross-examination and insisted he had seen nails. Similarly, Edith Barton testified that she was at the main plant on December 10 and placed Organizer Chambers on the scene. Barton was standing near the plant, awaiting a ride home, and observed several pickets, including Linda Barlow, making a throwing motion in the direction of the driveway. More specifically, she saw Barlow reach into a paper bag and make an underhand throwing motion along the driveway. She also saw Barlow pick up an object from the driveway and place it in front of the right rear wheel of a departing vehicle which had been stopped at the picket line. She placed Organizer Chambers about 10 feet from Barlow as this took place. The record elsewhere amply demonstrates that considerable nails were found in the driveway and that many cars suffered flat tires. In addition, Rosella Blevins, shortly after 7 a.m. on November 26, observed striker Wanda Grey reach into her pocket and make a throwing motion in the direction of the rear wheels of entering vehicles. She was not certain whether Organizer Jackson was present but, as found, a union representative was present on these occasions. In fact, Jackson returned to the picket line 5, 6, or 7 days after November 19. Linda Barlow did not testify herein. Chambers denied handing out nails to any striker, although she admittedly parked in the location where Hall placed her car. She claimed that she transported in her car only matter such as food and firewood for the strikers. She denied seeing Barlow scatter nails. Chambers claimed that she, Cham- bers, was a rock collector, that she and the girls would stoop down to pick up interesting stones and that they collected them. Indeed, she produced at the hearing certain stones decoratively mounted on cardboard as reflecting what the girls had picked up and were doing on these occasions. I do not credit this testimony by Chambers. Were this a geological or archeological search party, her version might have some credence. The simple answer is that the strikers were interested in keeping nonstrikers away from the plant, that they made throwing motions in the direction of the driveway, and that nails were found. Indeed, as will appear below, Organizer Jackson was personally involved in a nail incident. I find that Respondent Union scattered nails in an effort to damage cars of nonstrikers, that this was successful, and that this conduct constituted restraint and coercion. 7. Jackson and the nails Late on the afternoon of November 28, two company vehicles entered the driveway of the main plant. This was not a workday and no pickets were present at the time. William SanMillan, Bill Bunch, and Leon Bernard entered 345 in a truck and Elsing Jr. followed in a pickup truck. Noticing debris, boards, broken glass, and nails at the side of the driveway, both vehicles stopped. The men picked up all this matter and placed it in the rear of the Elsing pickup truck. As the task was completed, two cars with pickets arrived at the scene. Jackson jumped out, visibly agitated, and leaped into the rear of the pickup truck as SanMillan testified, shouting that this was "our personal property, you have no right to it." She also addressed some choice epithets at several of the nonstrikers. Jackson proceeded to throw all of the material out of the truck in approximately the same area where the men had picked it up. This was in the vision of the strikers and nonstrikers, including Captain Pink. It appears that the wood had been provided by the Union ostensibly as firewood, although it had been used in the striking of cars. Jackson admitted casting the nails in the direction of SanMillan or Bernard, telling them that these were the Employers' nails which the Employer had been putting "in our driveway." I find that Respondent Union threw the nails on the driveway on this occasion and that this constituted restraint and coercion of employees.8 8. The Linda Shed incident On November 28, 1969, nonstriker Linda Shed and two other girls, her cousins, visited a local variety store. The other two were not employees and one of them, Susan Barlow, was 15 years old and a student. As they left their automobile, another car with four women pulled up. The occupants were Organizer Jackson, Strike Captain Pink, and two female strikers. Jackson attempted to talk to Shed and Shed replied that she was not interested. Both groups entered the store. The Shed trio was at the cosmetic section and Jackson again spoke to Shed who repeated that she did not wish to talk to Jackson who in turn responded that "When the Union comes in" Shed would be "fired." As the Shed trio proceeded to the checkout stand, Jackson started to bump and shove Shed. Jackson also challenged Shed to a fight and Shed declined. After leaving the store, Shed went directly to her car and bent over to insert the car key into the lock. At this moment, Captain Pink approached her, shoved Shed away from the car, tossed her down, and started pulling her hair. Pink was sitting on Shed's stomach and was also beating her head against the pavement. This continued for some 2 or 3 minutes and Shed in turn managed to get hold of Pink's hair. Jackson and the other two strikers stood by and observed this. The two suggested to Jackson that they assist but Jackson replied "No, leave them alone." Jackson did not intervene at this point. A male customer of the store asked the Jackson entourage to leave Shed alone and Jackson responded "leave them alone, it's none of your business." A female bystander also attempted to persuade Jackson to stop the attack, similarly without success. Ultimately, Pink aban- doned the attack, apparently due to the efforts of the male bystander, and the Shed trio was able to leave. Photographs 8 This finding is based upon the mutually corroborative testimony of SanMillan and Bernard and, in effect, was admitted by Jackson 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD taken directly thereafter disclose that she was bruised about the head. These findings are based upon the testimony of Barlow as corroborated by Shed. Barlow impressed me most favora- bly as a witness. Although young and manifestly embar- rassed at being placed in the role of a witness, she gave a clear, lucid, and forthright version of the incident. Although Shed was, to say the least, in a disadvantageous position underneath Pink, she corroborated Barlow's version in very substantial measure. Ruby Eldridge testified that she was in the Jackson group. Her testimony is silent as to any threats in the store or any shoving. She claimed that Shed was unlocking her car door and that Pink happened to pass by. Shed straightened up, grabbed Pink's hair, and Pink returned the compliment. Another female attempted to intervene and Jackson told the female that she, Jackson, would take care of it. Jackson grasped Pink and a man helped Shed to her feet. I do not credit the testimony of Eldridge. It is manifest that Shed consistently was trying to get away from the Jackson group and had no difficulty with Pink. Indeed, prior to the strike, they had been close friends. It borders upon the fanciful to place Shed, attempting to get into her car and escape, as launching an attack upon Pink. I find that the shoving in the store, the threat of loss of employment in the event of unionization, and the physical assault upon Shed in the parking lot in the presence of employees constituted restraint and coercion. 9. The Vanciel incident On December 1, the misconduct of the Union went into high gear, as it were.9 Deputy Sheriffs James Garrison and J. D. Roberson were on duty on this occasion and the findings below are predicated upon their testimony. They impressed me as objective witnesses who reported the facts as they saw them. Indeed, a perusal of the record reflects that they bent over backwards with respect to the strikers. As Garrison testified, at 7:15 a.m., there were 50 to 55 strikers in the driveway of the entrance to the main plant as it leaves the highway. They parted from time to time to permit vehicles to enter. He observed Ollie Vanciel between a stopped company van and a car. Roberson asked her to leave, Vanciel refused, and Roberson was attempting to remove Vanciel from in front of the vehicle to permit that car to enter. Vanciel, however, faced and placed her hands upon the front of the rear automobile which was attempting to proceed very slowly into the plant. At this point, Organizer Jackson approached Roberson and grabbed him by the shoulder. In addition, Captain Pink grasped Roberson around the waist from the rear and locked her legs around his. Roberson threatened Pink with arrest and Pink responded that she desired precisely that. Jackson and Roberson had a similar exchange. Vanciel did not get out of the line of entry and I find that she could have done so had she desired. As Roberson testified, there was about 2 feet of space between the two vehicles. Vanciel and Billie White attempted to present a different version. Vanciel portrayed herself as attempting to get away from this area but being unable to do so. I do not credit this because there is ample specific and credited testimony to the contrary. For example, Jewel Williams was an occupant of the rear automobile and testified how Vanciel was forcibly removed from the area on this occasion and how Captain Pink attempted to break off a headlight on her vehicle. The testimony of her daughter, Gwen Williams, and that of Brenda Young, both in the same vehicle and impressive witnesses, discloses that during this incident Ellis Mitchell banged on the windshield and rocked the car. The testimony of Young discloses also that Jackson had been blocking the car in front of the stopped truck and was forcibly removed despite her kicking, punching, and scratching of officers. I find that on this occasion by blocking the driveway, striking and damaging vehicles of nonstrikers, and by impeding efforts to remove human road blocks from the scene, Respondent has engaged in conduct constituting restraint and coercion under the Act. 10. Captain Pink on December 1 Shortly later, about 9:15, Deputy Sheriff Garrison was alone on duty at the entrance to the main plant. As he uncontrovertedly testified, and I so find, a vehicle with two ladies, Brenda Nichols and Juanita Holden, attempted to enter the driveway. There were 15 to 20 strikers in the area and 2 or 3 stood in the path of the car, preventing its entry unless the driver chose to run them down. Several male strikers then began to rock the vehicle and, as Garrison approached, they desisted. A picket opened the driver's door and jerked the driver out of the car and onto the ground. Captain Pink then opened the door on the passenger's side and began to strike the passenger with her fist. The passenger fell to her left on her stomach and Pink proceeded to straddle her and continued to beat upon her head.10 Garrison attempted to pull Pink from the vehicle and Jackson grasped Garrison's arm and impeded his efforts. Garrison asked Jackson to get Pink out of the car.11 Jackson, in turn, told Garrison to leave Pink alone.12 Garrison worked his way around the left side of the car where Pink was pulling on the passenger's hair. He got Pink out of the car with the assistance of Jackson who ultimately told Pink to get out of the vehicle. The passenger at no time struck at Pink and, indeed, was in no position to do so. Several of the strikers grasped Garrison during this incident and impeded his activity. I find that the rocking of the vehicle, the impeding of the officer who was endeavoring to prevent violence against nonstrikers, and the assault upon the nonstrikers constituted restraint and coercion. 9 A state court injunction restricted the picketing activity on December effort to prevent violence. This further reflects on his objectivity and 4. reliability as a witness against Respondent. 10 This, it may be noted, was similar to her offensive technique against 11 This also is consistent with Jackson's conduct during the Shed Shed several days earlier. incident. 11 Garrison desired, as he testified, to keep the nonstrikers out in an INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION 347 11. The Bessie Sam incident About 1 hour later on December 1, Garrison was again sorely tried. A vehicle with job seekers Bessie and Lola Sam, and another, entered the premises and then attempted to leave. The pickets stood in its way and Garrison noticed that they were beating and striking at the car. As he testified, Jackson, wearing gloves, was beating at the window next to the driver. The glass broke and Jackson then worked it loose and dropped it along the side of the road. He insisted that it was Jackson's blows, and hers alone, that caved in the window, although he conceded that another might have previously cracked it. As Bessie Sam put it, she and two others applied for work and then attempted to leave the premises. The pickets prevented her departure and rocks were thrown, cracking several windows. At this point, a female I find to be Jackson stopped her conversation with a policeman on duty, came over to the car, grabbed the driver's window andjerked it out. I find that Jackson on this occasion further shattered a window previously damaged by a rock and pulled it from the car. I further find that the assaults, rockthrowing and damage inflicted on the vehicle in this manner constituted restraint and coercion.13 12. The Evelyn Kerns incident Evelyn Kerns was a striker on the picket line December 1. Organizer Jackson was on duty that afternoon and Organizer Chambers was placed on the scene some minutes after the incident. Officer Roberson uncontrovertedly testified, and I find, that Kerns had a wrench concealed beneath her coat. As the respective automobiles with workers passed by, she would remove the wrench and strike the windshields, thus cracking them. Kerns, who did not testify, was ultimately led away by officers. As nonstriker Linda Mason drove out that afternoon, her rear window was shattered by other strikers on the picket line. I find that these attacks on vehicles of nonstrikers constituted restraint and coercion. 13. Attack upon the Bunch car Bill Bunch was assigned to drive nonstrikers to their homes from a common meeting place. Thus, on December 1, he left with four passengers from the boys club in McAlester in a company vehicle. He drove approximately one-half mile to the home of one of them, Sullivan, making some turns during the process, and noticed that a vehicle kept following him. He later ascertained that it was driven by striker Glen Bramblett. Although Bunch had stopped at the Sullivan home, he decided because of this not to drop her off. He started up and drove about a bit, but the car remained behind him. He then decided to drive to the Elsing farm which is located 2 miles north of an intersection with a mayor highway. He arrived at the highway and started north. This 13 The testimony of Ollie Vanciel, which I do not accept, in effect places Jackson in the role of a good samantan trying to remove the dangling window as it was about to fall out who then carved it to the side of the road out of the way of pickets. As I see it, a picket commenced the assault with a rock and Jackson completed the task I find that Jackson inflicted is a divided road with a wide island, two lanes in each direction, and a level shoulder or service road on all sides. Bunch was in the right or slow lane and the Bramblett vehicle was still behind him. He decided to move to the left or fast lane, turned on his left turn indicator, and moved over. As he arrived in this position, he heard a loud thumping noise on the left side of his vehicle. He looked to his left and discovered that the Bramblett car was passing him, using the shoulder on the left to do so. Striker Rito Lasano had his arm extended through the open right rear window and was banging on the Bunch car with a three quarter inch pipe some 30 inches long as they passed; Lasano did this approximately five or six times. The Bramblett car then took a position in front of Bunch and promptly slowed down to 8 or 10 miles per hour, forcing Bunch to do likewise to avoid a collision. This was a 65 mile per hour zone at that hour. The Bramblett car then speeded up and, as they came to the Elsing ranch, Bunch turned in without further incident. As the Bramblett car passed, Bunch did observe the occupants and they included Organizer Jackson and Captain Pink. Bramblett gave a rather fanciful version of the incident. He was in the vicinity of the boys club in McAlester at the end of the day, the identical spot where the Bunch vehicle had started its trip. He denied following the Bunch car to the Sullivan home. To the contrary, he had suggested to Organizer Jackson that they drive to Eufaula, some 30 miles north, to persuade workers who lived in that town to join the Union. They decided to do so and he agreed that Lasano, Pink, and Jackson were in his car. They first came upon the Bunch vehicle before they reached the highway intersection and followed it onto the highway.14 Bramblett claimed that he passed the Bunch car which in turn passed him. Bramblett attempted to pass again and, as he did so, Bunch turned his car into the Bramblett car, his bumper striking the right rear door of the Bramblett car. Bramblett described the injury to this door. This contact knocked the Bramblett car over onto the shoulder of the road. I do not credit Bramblett herein. He admitted that he had been behind the Bunch vehicle, which was slower than his, for some three or four miles. And the use of the pipe by Lasano, who did not testify herein, was undemed. Indeed, Bramblett was uncertain just where Lasano was in the vehicle. And it certainly takes some time to open a window and extend a pipe. Stated otherwise, this is more consistent with premeditated action rather than a reflex action taken after being struck by another car. And the trip some 30 miles north to visit union supporters departing at the precise time and from the identical spot where workers assemble to return home stretches one's credulity. And they never did get to Eufaula. Indeed, as will appear below, union supporters worked over another female employee, Westmoreland, that same afternoon at the very location from which they departed. Bramblett was reminded that he previously testified in a the major portion of the damage and did not operate in a humanitarian manner on this occasion. 14 The principal route to Eufaula is the same highway which passes the Elsing ranch. 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD state court proceeding that he was at the boys club in order to take strikers to the union hall. He then, herein, testified that they did go to the union hall later. I credit the testimony of Bunch and find that Respondent engaged in conduct violative of the Act by extensive following of the Bunch vehicle, cutting around it on the highway, impeding its progress, and by striking at it with a pipe. 14. The Westmoreland incident As stated, the strikers worked over Rosie Westmoreland in rather thorough fashion that afternoon of December 1. After work, Westmoreland was driven to the boys club area where she was to get her ride home. She was walking in the direction of the transporting car, as Westmoreland testified and I so find, when striker Ima Eller, who did not testify, approached her. Westmoreland ignored some profanity from Eller, who then struck her several times in the right shoulder stating that she, Eller, would "fix" her and that Westmoreland would not work the next day. Deputy Sheriff Garrison intervened at this point and restrained Eller. Garrison directed Westmoreland to enter her car but, as she endeavored to do so, striker Ima Jane Little struck her in the face and clawed at her. Little apparently was no mean antagonist because her blow spread Westmoreland backward over the hood of the car. Little again availed herself of the opportunity to strike Westmoreland and claw her face and then restrained Westmoreland's hand. This opportunity was not lost upon Eller who returned to the fray and beat upon Westmoreland, striking her shoulder, and clawing at her eyes. This onesided attack lasted some 5 to 10 minutes. Several other strikers availed themselves of the opportunity to strike Westmoreland, including Captain Pink. One of them, Captain Scherman, took Westmoreland's purse but the deputy sheriff inter- vened and directed its return. It is to be noted that Organizer Jackson was not a disinterested onlooker. She was among a group of strikers who observed this incident and she did not intervene. Indeed, as Westmoreland was bent backward over the hood of the car, she noted that Jackson was observing the attack. In addition, Westmoreland observed Jackson in the immediate area with strikers directly before the attack. Westmoreland was a deliberate although perhaps not overarticulate witness. An effort was made to controvert her testimony by Donna Smith. Smith testified that there had been an incident involving an obscene gesture made to her, Smith's, husband. Jackson was on the scene to investigate and Jackson then walked away. Smith testified that she saw Westmoreland in the back seat of her car crying, upset, and shaking her fist at the strikers. She last saw Jackson some 3 to 5 minutes before the incident. It may be noted that there was direct evidence, in the form of press photos, of this assault upon Westmoreland as well as to identify her assailants. Westmoreland impressed me as an honest witness, although with limited communica- tion, and Smith's testimony in essence was evasive and not directed to the issue. I find that by the assaults upon Westmoreland Respondent has engaged in conduct constituting restraint and coercion. 15. The Post Office incident Claude Stark, newly hired by Respondent, was one of a crew that took some packages to the Post Office on the afternoon of December 1. Stark is 67 years of age, 5 feet 5 inches in height, weighs 155 pounds and is manifestly not an athlete, although Jackson, in turn, is a short woman. Stark was in the van of a company truck which had backed up to the loading dock of the post office to unload packages when Jackson appeared on the scene. Jackson had pulled in with a car load of strikers and they were about the van. There is evidence they had followed the van to the post office. As Stark put it, Jackson cursed him and he warned her against a repetition. Jackson cursed him again and threatened to whip him if he alighted from the vehicle; Stark did so. Jackson, a much younger person, kicked at him and he duly punched her; several blows were exchanged. There is some indication that Stark may have struck the first blow. The fight was broken up and Jackson then threw an aerosol paint can at Stark. Shortly after the scuffling stopped, Traffic Manager John Sullivan of the Employer who was on the truck observed that the word "scab" had been sprayed on both sides of the truck which had been unmarked on its departure from the plant. He saw the can in Jackson's hand just prior to the time she threw it at Stark. While an assault by a woman on a male may under designated circumstances not be coercive, this is not the case here. Jackson had an entourage with her and set on one who, in my observation, was far from a young athlete. I find that her implementation of the challenge to fight was coercive as it reflected what might be done to others who did not support the strike. I also find that Jackson sprayed the company truck and that this damage of property was equally coercive under the Act. 16. Spraying of Paint Laura Nance uncontrovertedly testified that on the afternoon of December 1 she was driving out of the plant. The cars were being stopped from time to time by the officer directing traffic. She observed strikers spraying paint on the sides of the departing cars including her own. As noted, Jackson was on duty that afternoon. I find that this conduct constituted restraint and coercion. 17. Nails on December 15 On the morning of December 15, Sonny Blevins drove to the cutting room gate accompanied by employee Steve Sullivan. A picket captain was on duty. When Sullivan alighted to open the gate, striker Christine Bramlett who had been on the left side of the car walked around to the right side, removed something from her pocket, bent down, and placed it in front of the right rear tire. Sullivan testified that this was a nail driven through a fruit jar lid (in order to achieve stability). Sullivan told Blevins to stop and attempted to push the nail out of the way. At this point, Bramlett started kicking at the hands of Sullivan and he pushed her away. As Sullivan went for the nail a second time, Bramlett grasped his coat. INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION 349 Ollie Vanciel assisted Bramlett in this restraint, both women hitting at and kicking at Sullivan. After the car finally went forward, Vanciel threw a rock at Sullivan. I find that Bramlett placed a nail in front of the tire of the vehicle driven by nonstrikers about to enter the plant, that Bramlett and Vanciel assaulted Sullivan in an effort to prevent his removing the nail, and that Vanciel threw a rock at him, all this constituting restraint and coercion under the Act.15 IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Board not yet having awarded damages to employees for losses in a context as this, a request by the Charging Party for such an award is not accepted. 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. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Elsing Manufacturing Co. is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 3. By restraining and coercing employees of Elsing Manufacturing Co. in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) 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 foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing the employees of Elsing Manufacturing Co., or applicants for employment, by engaging in mass picketing of plant entrances; by defacing company or employee vehicles, with paint or otherwise; by preventing automobiles or personnel from entering the plant; by damaging property or automobiles; by following or threatening physical violence to employees of Elsing; by throwing or placing nails in entrances or driveways; and by attacking or inflicting injury on employees or job applicants, or in any other manner restraining or coercing them in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting hall, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by an official representative of Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 16, signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Elsing Manufacturing Co., the latter willing, in places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 16 shall, after signature by Respondent as indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.17 15 This finding is based on the mutually corroborative testimony of Sullivan, Blevins, and Ella Moms who observed the incident. Striker Josephine Davis, in behalf of Respondent, had Sullivan knocking over Bramlett as the latter bent over to adjust her shoe laces ; this I do not accept, as this was hardly a time to tie shoe laces. Moreover, Davis conceded that Bramlett was stooping over near the right rear tire. I also reject the testimony of Vanciel that Sullivan initiated the assault. 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 National 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 " 17 In the event that that Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing of entrances to Elsing Manufacturing Co. WE WILL NOT deface company or employee vehicles with paint or otherwise. WE WILL NOT prevent automobiles or personnel from entering the plants. WE WILL NOT damage property or automobiles of employees. WE WILL NOT follow or threaten physical violence to employees. WE WILL NOT throw or place nails in entrance of driveways. WE WILL NOT attack or inflict injury upon employees orjob applicants. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of Elsing Manufacturing Co. in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, as amended, including the right to refrain from engaging in any or all such activities. 350 Dated By DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, Room 8A24, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 , Telephone 334-2921.