Local 235, Lithographers

490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local No. 235, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union and Henry Wurst, Inc. Lithographers & Photoengravers International Union Local 235 and George W. Gates Co., Inc. Lithographers & Photoengravers International Union Local 235 and Unruh-Pummill Mailing Service, Inc. Cases 17-CB-702, 17-CC-374, and 17-CC-375 December 28, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On July 31, 1970, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Employer filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. The Employer also filed a Motion to Strike Respondent's Exceptions to 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,' the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that by the various conduct set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The Respondent contends that it should not be held responsible for such behavior because it took all possible steps to repudiate the unlawful conduct which occurred. These steps I The Employer has moved to strike Respondent's exceptions on the ground that they do not comply with Section 102 46 of the Board's Rules in that they do not "designate by precise citation of page the portions of the record relied on and the supporting brief does not contain any specific page reference to the transcript " Section 102 46 states that any exception which does not comply with the requirements of that section "may be disregarded " Although Respondent's exceptions do not fully comply with 187 NLRB No. 63 consisted generally of oral and written instructions to strikers not to commit acts of violence. Such instruc- tions are not sufficient to absolve a labor organization of responsibility for acts of violence committed by pickets on the picket line and other agents of the union during the course of an authorized strike.2 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Henry Wurst, Inc., herein called Wurst, is engaged in printing and lithographic work. George W. Gates Company, herein called Gates, is engaged in perform- ing bookbinding services for printers and lithogra- phers. At the time the unfair labor practice charges were filed Gates was a separate corporation. Subse- quently it was merged with Wurst and became a division of the latter. Unruh-Pummill Mailing Serv- ice, Inc., herein called Unruh, is engaged in a mailing service. Wurst and Unruh are owned by members of the Wurst family; Gates was similarly owned until it was dissolved and merged into Wurst. Wurst, Gates, and Unruh occupy separate sections of a single U-shaped building. Material is printed in the Wurst section, and moved successively to the Gates and Unruh sections for binding and mailing. Gates and Unruh also do bindery and mailing work for employers other than Wurst. Similarly, not all of Wurst's binding and mailing work is performed by Gates and Unruh. However, 75 percent of Wurst's bindery and mailing work is done by Gates and Unruh. Such work for Wurst comprises a somewhat smaller proportion of the total business of Gates and Unruh, respectively. Wurst advertises that the three operations are performed under one roof. It also holds itself out to the public as "specialists in Direct Mail, dealer help publication printing" which is in a "central location . . . for fast, economical, nation- wide distribution whether by mail, rail, truck or plane." In order to insure a smooth flow of work and to correct any difficulties, production supervisors of Wurst, Gates, and Unruh meet once a week to schedule production operations, to check on work flowing through the building, and to determine whether additional Wurst work should be given to Gates and Unruh or to other subcontractors. Notwithstanding the facts that the Companies are commonly owned, are located in the same building, and their operations, as the General Counsel con- cedes, "tend to resemble continuous flow of prod- the requirements of the rule, we have decided not to disregard them as the Employer has not shown prejudice as the result of the deficiency, and we have found the exceptions to be without merit 2 United Mine Workers of America (Solar Fuel Company), 170 NLRB No 178, Teamsters Local 783, et al (Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville), 160 NLRB 1776 LOCAL 235, LITHOGRAPHERS 491 uction," the General Counsel contends that Gates and Unruh are (in respect to Wurst) neutral "other persons" as those words are used in Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act and therefore are entitled to the protection of that section of the Act in a dispute between Wurst and its employees. In support of the claim that they are "other persons," Gates and Unruh refer to the facts that they maintain separate bookkeeping sys- tems, have separate supervision, and do not inter- change employees, and their managers have complete authority in determining labor policies and running day-to-day operations. Based on the contention that Gates and Unruh are neutrals, the General Counsel contends that the picketing of the common premises was unlawful because it was directed not only at the employees of Wurst, the primary Employer, but also at the employees of Gates and Unruh, alleged neutrals. The Trial Examiner found that "Wurst, Gates and Unruh constituted a single employer and that no neutral employer or other person was involved in the dispute." We agree that Gates and Unruh are not neutrals. Wurst, Gates, and Unruh are engaged in an integrated, straight line operation on common premis- es, i.e., Wurst does the printing, Gates, the binding, Unruh, the mailing. On the basis of these facts, we find that Gates and Unruh are not neutrals or wholly unconcerned persons within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.3 We therefore conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that by picketing the common premises occupied by Wurst, Gates, and Unruh, the Respondent Union did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.4 ORDERS Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Local No. 235, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decisions It is hereby further ordered that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 3 National Union of Marine Cooks (Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company), 87 NLRB 54, 56, see Warehouse Union Local 6, ILWU (Hershey Chocolate Corporation), 153 NLRB 1051, 1061 Cf Bachman Machine Co v N L R B, 266 F 2d 599, 605 (C A 8) 4 The present case is readily distinguishable from American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (Hearst Corp), 185 NLRB No 26, Los Angeles Newspaper Guild (Hearst Corp), 185 NLRB No 25, and Miami Newspaper Printing Pressmen (Knight Newspapers, Inc), 138 NLRB 1346, enfd 322 F 2d 405 (C A D C ), where the Board held that a labor dispute at one autonomous division of a single company or commonly controlled companies did not excuse picketing at other autonomous divisions located elsewhere in these cases, there was no integration of operations of the separate divisions The instant case is similarly distinguishable from Bachman Machine Company v N L R B, 266 F.2d 599 (C A 8), and J G Roy and Sons Company v N L R B , 251 F 2d 771 (C A I), where the courts held that two family owned corporate employers engaged in different lines of business at different locations were not a single employer for purposes of Section 8(b)(4)(B) because there was common ownership and control and one company was a substantial customer of the other Again there was the lack of integrated operations present in this case The court noted in Bachman that that case would have presented a different problem "if the two companies were engaged in an integrated operation, as in the Irwin- Lyons Lumber Company case, 87 NLRB 54 " (supra at 605) Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No 639, Teamsters (Poole's Warehousing), 158 NLRB 1281 , also cited by the General Counsel is similarly inapposite In that case the Board held that commonly owned warehouse and trucking operations carried on respectively at two different locations were not so closely interrelated or allied with each other as to justify picketing of the warehouse in a labor dispute involving the trucking operation and its employees 5 The Employer excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to require the Respondent to "backpay those persons who, as a result of the [Respondent's] illegal activity, lost employment or who were coerced into terminating their employment with Wurst " We find no meet in this exception In United Furniture Workers of America (Colonial Hardwood Flooring Company, Inc), 84 NLRB 563, 565-566, the Board, although finding that a union had violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) by using coercive means to prevent nonstrikers from working, held that it was without statutory power to require the labor organization to indemnify the employees for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct 6 In footnote 21 of the Trial Examiner's Decision substitute "20" for "10" days TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed in Case 17-CC-374, on July 30, 1969, by George W. Gates Co., Inc., herein Gates, and a charge filed in Case 17-CC-375, on July 29, 1969, by Unruh-Pumpill Mailing Service, Inc., herein Unruh, and a charge filed in Case No. 17-CB-702, on July 30, 1969, by Henry Wurst, Inc., against Local Union No. 235, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, herein the Respondent, the General Counsel issued a complaint, and amendment to the complaint and an order consolidating the cases alleging Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i )(u)(B) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The answer of Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. This case, with all parties represented, was heard by me at Kansas City, Missouri, on April 7 and 8, 1970. At the conclusion of the case the parties were given leave to file briefs and briefs were received from the parties on May 14, 1970. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following: FINDINGS I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES Gates, at the time the charges were filed was a Missouri corporation which, on September 30, 1969, merged with Wurst and became a division of Wurst , operating under the trade name of George W. Gates Company. Gates is engaged in performing bookbinding services for printers and lithographers at 1345 Saline, North Kansas City. It 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD purchases goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 annually directly from places outside the State of Missouri. Unruh is a Missouri corporation operating a mailing service at 1345 Saline, North Kansas City, Missouri. It performs services for customers, who, in turn, purchase goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 annually directly from places outside the State of Missouri. Wurst is a Missouri corporation engaged in the printing and lithography industry at 1331 Saline, Kansas City, Missouri. It purchases goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 annually directly from places outside the State of Missouri. Gates, Unruh, and Wurst are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence 1. Violations of section 8(b)(1)(A) The collective-bargaining contract between Wurst and the Respondent expired April 30, 1969 i, and on July 1 Respondent struck Wurst.2 Incidents stemming from this strike are the grounds for the allegations of violations of 8(b)(1)(A)• Rubin DePeralta, employed by Wurst as a strike replacement in mid-July, testified that on July 24 Robert Dickens, assistant to the president of Respondent, visited him at his home. According to DePeralta, Dickens, who knew DePeralta from another job, asked him if he knew there was a picket line at Wurst, told him that he did not want to see DePeralta get hurt and that he (Dickens) could not control Respondent's 900 members. Dickens told him he might be pulled off the road one night and get his brains knocked out. Dickens added that things might get rough and that the Wurst employees were not as violent as Respondent's other members and asked him for the names and addresses of other employees then working so he could give them the same advice . DePeralta also testified that on November 5 Dickens walked across one of the plant driveways as DePeralta was approaching and jumped in front of the car, almost causing DePeralta to hit him. On examination by counsel DePeralta testified that on the second day of his work pickets shouted obscene epithets at him as he was leaving and threw rocks at the car in which he was leaving. Dickens testified that on his visit to DePeralta's home he asked him not to work there and when DePeralta mentioned that he had been followed home he told him the 1 Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1969 2 When the strike started picket lines were set up for the around-the- clock duty on 4-hour shifts. A picket captain was in charge of each shift and about six or seven pickets were on duty See G.C Exh 2 3 1 believe that portion of the testimony quoted which reads "not to be militant" is an error on the part of the reporter It does not effect the findings made herein Respondent wanted a peaceful strike, but could not control 900 members. Ronald Betteron testified that he had been employed by Wurst as a pressman, went on strike on July 1 and returned to Wurst in December. He served as a picket on a 4-hour shift and was instructed by Harold Larso, Respondent's president, "Not to be militant, not to be playing around, not to be playing baseball or football, to look after it and to be militant in the driveways." 3 The pickets were instructed to walk back and forth across the driveways carrying signs and also noting the license numbers of the cars of Wurst employees. The purpose of notations was to let the strikebreakers know their names and addresses would be known to Respondent. Betteron attended union meetings during the strike period which were addressed by International officers as well as Larson and at which the members were told to call the strikebreakers at night simply to harass them.4 Betteron made one telephone call to a strikebreaker named Hatfield and hung up when he answered. Betteron stated he had thrown nails in Wurst's driveways but had never been instructed to do so. Gary Mansur testified that he had been employed in the pressroom at Wurst, had gone on strike on July 1 and returned to work in November. He had walked the picket line and had attended union meetings . At one of these meetings Larson advised them to make telephone calls to employees who were working and had been present at a restaurant when Betteron called Hatfield. He also testified that the pickets were instructed to give the Wurst employees a "hard time" when they were leaving the plant; 5 that the pickets would follow them in cars and take their license numbers. He also told another employee he might have his head beaten in. After he returned to work a can of paint remover was thrown on the car in which he was riding. Nails were thrown in the driveways at times and rocks were thrown at the parked cars of Wurst employees at times .6 He never saw guns or clubs on the picket line nor did he see any pictures taken by the strikers. On one occasion human waste was placed on the doorknobs of the Wurst building. The picket captain was asleep when this was done.? Harry Fisher, foreman at Wurst, testified that he drove to the plant on July 7 to go to work. His testimony as to what happened reads: A. At that particular time I was riding with my sister-in-law who worked at Selby Carpet Company over on Taney and she let me out at the center gate at the entrance and, as I walked up to the line, naturally, there were approximately four pickets standing there. One of them was Bob Wysong who was standing there with a 2 by 2, oh, by approximately 4-1/2 feet long. He stepped up in front of me and told me not to go in the plant. Then the pickets from the other two gates started drifting up to where I was-Bob was standing in front of me-and my sister-in-law, when she saw this, backed up. She wanted to take me in. I said, "No, there are not 4 Betteron also testified that Larson and Dickens told the members not to make such calls. 5 The pickets complied with this instruction by shouting obscenities and threats at the strikebreakers B This was not done pursuant to any instructions received from Larson or Dickens I This incident was not alleged in the complaint. LOCAL 235, LITHOGRAPHERS enough pickets on this line to keep me out of there." So Bob told me, he said, "I wouldn't go in there if I was you because it wouldn't be healthy." I said, "Bob, I am going to give you three reasons why I am going in there. First of all", I said "it is cooler inside, and", I said "second, I am Harry Fisher, and", I said, "third, I wasn't in the union before this strike happened and I am not union now." Q. (By Mr. Hurley) What happened at that time? A. I was standing there with a stick in front of me and then, of course, I told him to move out of my way because I was going on in and go to work. Q. Did you eventually go in? A. Yes, he moved out of the way and I walked on in. Steve Patsch, employed by Wurst, testified that when he drove to work on July 23 two pickets walked in front of his car and one of them jumped on the hood. He drove on at about two miles an hour and the picket jumped off and kicked his car. He identified this picket as Ron Betteron. (Betteron, a witness for the General Counsel, could not recall the incident.) He also testified that he was told he could have four of five flat tires. On Sunday, July 27, Patsch received word from his father to call Dickens. He called Dickens, admitted he worked at Wurst, and was told that he could put himself in jeopardy by working there and that while they (union representatives) preached nonviolence to their members they could not control them. Patsch told Dickens he would quit his job and Dickens told him he would not be harassed at the gate. The next morning, after he told the pickets he was going in to quit, he was passed without incident. Dickens testified that he had a talk with Patsch's father and told him he (Dickens) would appreciate it if Patsch did not go to work since the plant was on strike. Dickens did not testify to any conversation with Patsch. Gary Coe testified that he applied for work at Wurst on July 25 and that when he left the plant he was followed by a pickup truck to the Dispatch plant where he was working at the time. Later a man whom he identified as Henry Mansur, an employee at Wurst, came to the plant and asked him if he was going to go to work for Wurst. Mansur asked him if he knew there was a strike at Wurst and told him "there had been some guys beat up down there." 8 As to the car which had followed Coe to the Dispatch Mansur said the occupants (unidentified) might have been drinking and might be militant. Mansur also told him he (Mansur) was doing picket duty at Wurst and that they (the pickets) harrassed the strikebreakers and called them names; that there were 900 members of Respondent and some were wilder than others. Mansur was not called as a witness. John Jurgen testified that on or about July 29 a picket struck his car with the back of his hand and that the pickets called him a scab. (Jurgen did not deny that he was scabbing at the time.) James Walton testified that he worked as a flyboy for Wurst in July and August. He testified to an incident on August 12 as follows: B There is no evidence in the record that any physical violence, in the nature of a "beating up" of strikebreakers, took place at the Wurst plant 9 The Charging Party offered no testimony, rejected, that Thomas 493 A. I don't know his name, one day I was on my way to work, one of the employees, he didn't want to go through the driveway and cause any trouble so he led me out up by Nationwide Paper Company. I was walking on my way down toward the north driveway. One of the pickets who had on shorts called to the other pickets down toward that driveway. When I got down there he asked me where was I going. I told him I was going to work. He says, "You are not being too smart. I wouldn't go to work if I were you." I told him, "Well, when I started I didn't know they were on a strike and it wasn't my fault they were on a strike." He then said, "Why don't I talk to Harold Larson of the union," that he would take me out to dinner and get me ajob with a company that had a good union. He gave me Harold Larson's phone number and I told him I would call him. At that time another fellow, a short, dark-haired fellow, told me I should think it over because if I didn't something bad might happen to me, and then he showed me a knife with a blade about nine or ten inches long. Walton managed to push past the pickets and got into the plant without further ado. The only two pickets Walton could identify were Gary Mansur and Ron Betteron. Neal Kennedy testified that he was occasionally followed by pickets in a Buick Riviera as he left work and would have to go 40 or 50 blocks out of his way to lose them. He also testified that on several occasions, the pickets, as he drove through to work, would hold 2 inches x 2 inches sticks in a threatening fashion and warn him that he had better not go in and that he could be hurt. On one morning a picket threw a lighted cigarette between the rubber shield and the window glass on the passenger side of his car. Larry Thomas testified that he was employed part-time by Wurst in July and that his employment was probationar- y. On July 22 as he drove to work he observed a picket in the driveway taking pictures but he went right in. As he left the parking lot on that day a picket told him he had better keep his windows rolled up or he would be sorry and added that he would knock his (Thomas's) head in.9 As a result of this harassment, Thomas resigned his employment with Wurst, although he was never actually assaulted by anyone. Steve Alexander testified that he went to work for Wurst about August 1 and that one day when he went to work on his motorcycle a picket shouted to him that he should take it in with him because when he returned it would not be there and that when he came -it he should wear his helmet because they (the pickets) would run him into a brick wall. As he was coming out the south driveway that night a picket hit him on the head with a broomstick. (The record does not indicate whether he was wearing his helmet. Presumable he was.) Wayne Altenburg testified that he started to work for Wurst in July and that as he was leaving work on July 24 a picket took down his license number and that on that morning one of the pickets told him his wife and children might wind up dead. He also received telephone calls at home in the middle of the night (anonymous) telling him would have continued his employment had it not been for these threats and suggested that Thomas was entitled to backpay from the Respondent for any loss of wages suffered as a result of Respondent's coercion. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that he had better not go to work the next day. Sometimes he received no message at all, the caller simply hung up. Thomas Cunningham testified that he was working for Wurst on December 3 when he and two other employees left the plant. His car was followed by Ron Betteron and, in another car, by Rudy Galistel. Both cars followed him so closely that two accidents were narrowly averted. The pursuers finally dropped the chase at Kansas City. At the conclusion of Cunningham's testimony General Counsel's Exhibit 4 was offered and received over the objection of Respondent's counsel . This document reads: L.P.I.U. LOCAL 235 913 Tracy Ave. Kansas City, Mo. SHOP CHAIRMAN - Please post on your plant bulletin board or wherever permitted to do so. TO ALL L.P.I.U MEMBERS: The following are in plant cabs at Henry Wurst, Inc., who were already employees of the company that are trying to work on Litho production work. PRESS ROOM Jack Wray (Pressroom supervisor-Former Member also brought his son in) Al Arnold, Sr. (Vice President of Sales) Herb Taylor (Salesman-Former ITU member) Tom Cunningham (Salesman-Litho probationary employee prompted to the office) Charles Robinson (Maintenance Supervisor who also brought his son in) Leonard Ladd (Maintenance Foreman who also brought his son in. Former ITU and Railroad card holder.) Red Holmes (Traffic Controller) Chuck Jungers (Bowers Ink in plant, man paid by Bowers Ink Company in Chicago) Don't Buy Bowers Ink H. R. Wurst (Company Vice President--Gladstone City Councilman) John Wurst (Company President) Henry E Wurst (Chairman of the Board) PLATE ROOM Bill George (Prep Supervisor) Mike Mullins (Student-Son of Bernard L. Mullins, M.D. North Kansas City) STRIPPING Dan Davis (Company Officer) Vickie Hoye (Office Accounting Clerk) Lee Wilhite (Quality Control) There is obviously only one craftsman in the entire bunch and it takes more than that. The company normally has 7-8 press crews and is attempting to run with 1-2 crews because they have only one pressman (Jack Wray). If you know any of these above listed in plant scabs, let them know what you think about this and the fact that the company is trying to take away what has been negotiated over the last twenty years along with only offering substandard increases. FRATERNALLY, HAROLD R. LARSON, PRESIDENT LOCAL 235, L.P.I.U. John Wurst, president of Wurst, testified that he saw Robert Wysong, a picket, throw nails into the south driveway leading to the Wurst parking lot. He identified the nails as 2-inch roofing nails which had been used by the company. He stated that nails were frequently thrown in the driveways by pickets and that Wurst had costs of about $700 for repairing flats for employees' cars. For the Respondent Harold Larson, its president, testified that on November 20 Respondent issued written instructions to its pickets which were stapled to the back of its picket signs. These instructions 10 (Resp . Exh. 1) read: INSTRUCTIONS TO PICKETS All pickets are directed to carefully follow these instructions. 1. You are only to picket in the area that has been assigned to you. 2. You are particularly warned not to make any statements to anyone. You are absolutely forbidden to request that anyone stop working or not make deliveries. 3. You must keep silent and answer no questions of suppliers, employees or anyone else. 4. You are not to block ingress and egress to the plant and you are not in any way to interfere with the entrance to or work of any employee at the plant. 5. All pickets are directed to peacefully and silently patrol the area assigned to them . Pickets are to keep walking at all times in the area and they are not to wave picket signs at anyone or anything. 6. An attempt may be made by employees or others to involve you in an argument. Keep silent and keep walking. If someone starts trouble , you must not 10 The instructions were issued following a local court injunction enjoining unlawful conduct on the picket line LOCAL 235, LITHOGRAPHERS 495 become involved in a fight. Don't fall into the company's trap. 7. In the event the police appear, you are to speak to them respectfully. If they ask you about the purpose of the picketing, you are to simply advise them that you are on strike against the Wurst Printing Company. You are to say nothing more. You are to comply with any orders or instructions that the police may give to you. After you have complied with their instructions, immediately notify your picket captain or the represent- ative of the local union of what the policy said or any instructions that they gave. 8. If something comes up for which you are not prepared, stop picketing and contact your union representative and await instructions. In addition, Respondent's counsel, Robert S. Fousek, instructed the pickets to lawfully and peacefully picket, not to throw nails or anything else and not to block ingress and egress to and from the plant. At a shop meeting set up on July 23 they were told not "to use any verbal language" to employees entering or leaving the plant and not to harass employees by telephone. On cross-examination Larson stated he drove to the picket lines on several occasions to observe how it was being conducted and that he talked to the pickets, telling them to walk across the driveways but not to block them. He did instruct the pickets to follow employees as they left the plant and to take their license numbers. He did not instruct the pickets to take pictures. He also told his members the Union would post bonds for members who were arrested. This, I believe, summarizes the testimony relevant to the 8(b)(I)(A) charges. I have not included the testimony of Henry Wurst relating to a day on which the plant area was flooded and a picket placed a sign over a drain which had been cleared, thereby again blocking the drain. I do not see that this establishes either restraint or coercion of employees 2. Conclusions as to 8(b)(l)(A) It may seem unrealistic to require that a picket line shed the sweetness and charm of Vassar's daisy chain 11 or that it maintain the dignity of the procession of cardinals (although so close a formation would not be tolerated) but that appears to be the trend of Board decisions. The following findings are, I believe, in accord with prior decisions of the Board. Based on testimony which I credit I find Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by: (a) Dickens' statements to DePeralta that he (DePeralta) might be pulled off the road one night and get his brains knocked out; that all the union members were not peaceful and that he could not restrain 900 members.12 (b) The shouting of threats and obscenities by the pickets at strikebreakers as they crossed picket lines. (c) Taking down the license numbers of cars which crossed the picket lines. (d) Calling strikebreakers at their homes at night to harass them. (e) Throwing nails in the driveways leading to the Wurst plant. (f) Distribution by Respondent of its "scab list containing the names of strikebreakers to its members.13 (g) Following employees of Wurst in cars as they left the plant.14 (h) Blocking access to the plant to strikebreakers as they attempted to enter.15 Other incidents set forth in the testimony of the witnesses are rejected as insufficient to constitute restraint and coercion of employees even giving full latitude to the "imprecision" of those terms. It is true that Respondent neither authorized nor ratified most of the conduct found unlawful herein and that its instructions to its members proscribed coercive activity. Respondent did, however, authorize the strike, it set up the picket lines and it appointed the picket captains who supervised them. Under these circumstances and absence evidence that Respondent took authoritative steps to repudiate unlawful conduct I find that under the rules of agency peculiar to labor law it was responsible for the misconduct of the strikers.16 3. Violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) The General Counsel has alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) by (1) inducing employees of Gates and Unruh to cease work for Gates and Unruh and (2) has picketed the premises of Gates and Unruh in each case with the purpose of forcing Gates and Unruh to cease doing business with Wurst. The threshold question presented is whether Gates and Unruh were neutral employers not involved in the dispute between Respondent and Wurst or constituted, together with other employers, a single integrated enterprise. An aerial view of the premises (G. C. Exh. 3)17 indicates that Wurst, Gates, and Unruh occupied a common situs and were all housed in the same building. Also occupying the premises were Continental Color Press, Inc., and Printing Park, Inc., Printing Park, whose stock was owned by Continental, built the premises and Continental owned and leased certain of the presses to the other corporations. All of these corporations were owned in substantial part by and controlled by the Wurst family. On September 30, 1969, Gates and Continental were dissolved as separate corpora- 11 The daisy chain would be anachrostic today but there must be those who feel some nostalgia for the days when girl graduates carried flowers rather than bucks and did not salute the dean of women with four-letter obscenities i2 There is conflict between the testimony of DePeralta and Dickens as to what was said at this meeting at DePeralta's home Both appeared to be credible witnesses and it is not without hesitation that I credit DePeralta I make a similar finding with respect to Patsch's testimony that he was told by Dickens that he was putting himself in jeopardy by working and that he could not control all the members 13 G C Exh 4 14 In reaching this conclusion no reliance has been placed on the testimony of Gary Coe The persons alleging following Coe were never identified 11 This refers to testimony of Patsch that two pickets walked in front of his car and that one of them jumped on the hood While I regard this incident as minimal, I think, accompanied by the other coercive conduct, it is sufficient under Board decisions to establish a violation 16 United Mine Workers of America, et a!, 170 NLRB No 178 17 See also Resp Exh 2 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions and were merged with Wurst and Printing Park became a wholly owned subsidiate of Wurst. The stock ownership and management of these corporations have been set forth in Joint Exhibit 1, a copy of which has been attached hereto as Appendix "A." As to the operations of the companies, John Wurst testified that Wurst performed the printing and lithographic work and that Gates and Unruh, as subcontractors to Wurst, performed bindery and mailing services respective- ly. Although Wurst testified that Gates and Unruh submitted bids for such work in competition with other companies he admitted that Gates and Unruh obtained three-quarters of such work as was required by Wurst and were preferred subcontractors. All bank accounts, payrolls, and audits were separately maintained.18 Wurst further testified that each of the companies maintained its own labor policy and that there was no interchange of employees among the companies and that facilities such as lunchrooms, rest rooms, and working equipment, including storage space, were separately maintained. Welfare and pension plans were separately operated. The brief of counsel for the Charging Party sets forth 12 areas in which the companies exercised independent authority and there is evidence in the record to support his conclusions in each instance. Despite this I find that Wurst, Gates, and Unruh constituted a single employer and that no neutral employer or "other person" was involved in the dispute. All were operated in a closely related enterprise for the common benefit of the Wurst family and certain other officers and stockholders. The fiction of autonomy was maintained largely for tax and accounting purposes, perfectly legiti- mate, but not binding upon me in reaching decision under Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. It would indeed be difficult to hold that these entities, operated under a single roof, serving as a common enterprise and owned and controlled by a single family could be said to have independent labor policies. While Wurst dealt with one union, Gates with another, and Unruh with none this resulted from the divergence in actual operations which called for separate skills. The facts in this case are far stronger in support of the single employer theory than in United Steelworkers (Auburndale Freezer), 177 NLRB 1321, and on that ground I must recommend dismissal.19 IV. THE REMEDY Having found Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist from the same and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. 1s The mergers of the companies were effected with the approval of Internal Revenue and tax considerations appear to have been the leading motive 19 While the decision of a district judge is not binding upon the Board or the examiner the application for an injunction , which requires less evidence of violation than a hearing on complaint, was dismissed in Thomas C Hendrix, etc v Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union Local 235, U S District Court, Western District of Missouri, Civil Action 17992-3 The Court found that "Unruh -Pumphill Mailing Service, Inc., George W. Gates and Henry Wurst, inc , constitute a single employer or portions of a common enterprise , and George W Gates and Unruh- Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By engaging in the conduct as found in paragraph A, 2, of this decision Respondent has restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and has thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 2. Respondent has not violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices 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 hereby recommended that Respondent Local 235, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, its officers, agents, representatives, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Telling its members and employees of Wurst that they might be pulled off the road and have their brains knocked out for crossing the picket line at Wurst. (b) Telling its members and employees of Wurst that it could not control or restrain the actions of its membership. (c) Shouting threats and obscenities through its pickets at employees of Wurst who attempted to cross the picket line. (d) Telling its members to take down the license numbers of the cars of employees who attempted to cross the picket line. (e) Telling its members and having its members call employees of Wurst at home at night to harass them for crossing the picket line. (f) Throwing nails in the driveways of the Wurst plant. (g) Distributing a "scab list" of the names of Wurst employees who worked during the strike. (h) Blocking access to the Wurst plant to Wurst employees as they attempted to enter the plant. (i) Following Wurst employees in cars as they left the plant. (I) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of Wurst in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Post at the offices and meeting halls of the Respondent at Kansas City, Missouri, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix B."20 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 17, shall, after being signed by a duly authorized Pumphill Mailing Service, Inc, do not constitute any "other" employers as those words are used in Section 8(b)(4) of the Act " 20 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 by 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 LOCAL 235, LITHOGRAPHERS 497 representative of Respondent, be posted immediately upon writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this decision receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive what steps have been taken to comply herewith.zi days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places It is further recommended that the complaint, as to all where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason- allegations not specifically found to be in violation of the able steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not Act shall be dismissed. altered, defaced or covered by other material. read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED (b) Mail signed copies of said notice to the Regional STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE Director of Region 17 for posting by Henry Wurst, Inc., if NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" willing, at all locations where notices to employees are Si In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read . "Notify said Regional Director, in customarily posted . writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in has taken to comply herewith" APPENDIX A STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES Counsel for the Petitioner and Counsel for the Respondent hereby stipulate and agree to the facts set forth below. A. The following is a complete listing of the stockholders and their respective stock holdings of Henry Wurst , Inc., George W. Gates Co., Inc., Unruh-Pummill Mailing Service , Inc., Continental Color Press , Inc., and Printing Park, Inc., on July 1, 1969: 1. Henry Wurst, Inc. 2. George W. Gates Co., Inc. Henry Wurst 2,000 shares Harold Phelps 1 shares Virginia N. Wurst 2,000 Jean W. Archer 158 Mrs. Susan W. Carter 56,950 Virginia M. Wurst 1 Jeffrey Carter 1,200 John C. Wurst 5 Stephen Carter 1,200 Henry R. Wurst 5 Carol Carter 1,200 Susan Carter 5 Mrs. Jean Archer 56,950 Jeffrey Carter 5 Andrea Archer 1,200 Stephen Carter 5 Henry R. Wurst 61,250 Carol Carter 5 Virginia R. Wurst 2,400 Michael Wurst 5 Russell Wurst 2,400 Amy Wurst 5 Tony Wurst 2,400 Tim Wurst 5 Valerie Wurst 2,400 Emily Wurst 5 John C. Wurst 104,450 Virginia R. Wurst 5 Michael Wurst 2,400 Tony Wurst 5 Amy Wurst 2,400 H. Russell Wurst 5 Tim Wurst 2,400 Valerie Wurst 5 Emily Wurst 1,200 Donald Carter 5 Phyliss Wurst 5 Margaret Wurst 5 498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Unruh-Pummill Mailing Service. Inc. John C. Wurst 700 shares Henry R . Wurst 600 Raymond S . Storer 400 James L. Pummill 400 E. J. Unruh 400 (now Treasury stock) 4. Continental Color Press. Inc. Henry E. Wurst 170 shares Virginia M. Wurst 14 5. Printing Park. Inc. All stock was owned by Continental Color Press, Inc. Be After the merger of Henry Wurst , Inc., George W. Gates Co. Inc ., Continental Color Press , Inc. and Printing Park, Inc. on September 30, 1969 , the following changes in corporate structure and. stock ownership occurred and continue to the present: 1. Henry Wurst. Inc. (successor corporation) Henry Wurst - 72,196 shares John C. Wurst - 68,850 shares Henry R . Wurst - 40,681 shares (No other stockholders holding common stock) 2. George W. Gates Co .. Inc., dissolved 3. Continental Color Press. Inc. dissolved 4. Printing Park. Inc. became a wholly owned subsidiary of Henry Wurst, Inc. LOCAL 235, LITHOGRAPHERS C. Unruh Pummill Mailing Service, Inc., was not involved in the aforesaid merger, and its ownership was not thereby affected or changed in any way. 499 D. The following constitutes a complete list of the officers and directors of the foregoing corporations , and is current except where otherwise indicated. 1. Henry Wurst, Inc. . John C. Wurst Henry R. Wurst Daniel S. Davis John B. Smith A.L. Arnold, Jr. Henry E. Wurst George W. Gates Company, President and Director Vice-President and Director Treasurer and Director Secretary and Director Director Director Inc, (unitl September 30, 1969) Harold Phelps Alfred C. Salmon John B. Smith President and Director Vice-President and Director Secretary Treasurer and Director 3. Unruh-Pummill Mailing Service Inc. Raymond S . Storer James L. Pummill William E. Fassbinder John B. Smith President and Director Vice-President and Director Secretary-Treasurer /Director Director 4. Continental Color Press . Inc. (until September 30, 1969) . John C. Wurst Henry R. Wurst John B. Smith Henry E. Wurst Printing Park. Inc. President and Director Vice-President and Director Secretary-Treasurer and Director Director John C. Wurst President and Director Henry R. Wurst Vice-President and Director John B. Smith Secretary-Treasurer and Director Henry E. Wurst Director 500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THOMAS C . HENDRIX, Regional Director of the Seventeenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, Signed (Name and Title) LITHORGRAPHERS & PHOTOENGRAVERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 235, Respondent. Signed (Name and Title) COUNSEL FOR CHARGING PARTIES Signed (Name and Title) APPENDIX B NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT tell any members of our union or any employees of Henry Wurst, Inc. that they might be pulled off the road and have their brains knocked out because they have crossed the picket line maintained by us at Henry Wurst, Inc. WE WILL NOT tell any members of our union or any employees of Henry Wurst, Inc., that we cannot control or restrain the actions of our members WE WILL NOT, through pickets at Henry Wurst, Inc., who are subject to our control, shout threats and obscenities at persons who attempt to cross said picket lines. WE WILL NOT tell our members to take down the license numbers of the cars of employees of Henry Wurst, Inc., who attempt to cross the picket line. WE WILL NOT tell our employees to call employees of Henry Wurst, Inc., at their homes or otherwise harass them for crossing the picket lines. WE WILL NOT have our pickets at Henry Wurst, Inc., (Date) (Date) (Date) throw nails in any of the driveways leading to the Henry Wurst plant. WE WILL NOT distribute or post a "scab list" of the names of employees working at the Henry Wurst plant during the strike. WE WILL NOT have our pickets follow employees of Henry Wurst, Inc., as they leave the plant at night. Dated By LOCAL No. 235, LITHOGRAPHERS AND PHOTOENGRAVERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (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, 610 Federal Building 601 E. 12th Street , Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.