United Mine Workers of America

344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Mine Workers of America and United Mine Workers of America, District No. 6 and Weirton Construction Company. Cases 8-CB-1239 and 8-CP-69 February 7, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND-MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On September 20, 1968 , Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued ,his Decision in the above -entitled case, finding that ', the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision . Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, 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 brief, and the entire record in this case , and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondents restrained , and coerced the employees of Weirton Construction Company, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), by mass picketing and threats of violence calculated to deny to nonstriking employees the right to free access to the mining operations. The 50-75 men whom the Respondents, through their agent Vitter, assembled on Riddles Run Road on the morning of February 5, 1968, apparently did not physically bar the access roads to the mine site. However, in our opinion, the presence of a large group of men milling about on the road , without identifying signs and possessed of a considerable numerical advantage over the 15 Weirton employees located at the mine site would tend, when taken together with the remarks made by the pickets, to chill the desire of employees to cross the picket line and come to work. Moreover, it is apparent, from their remarks to employee Mitchell and supervisor Balletto, that Vitter and other pickets relied on the threat of violence implicit in the number and appearance of their group to give added impact to their verbal warnings and threats.' As a result of this unlawful conduct, Respondents succeeded in bringing about the closing of the mining operations on that day. Two other coercive confrontations, intimately related to the events of February 5, occurred between that date, when the mine was closed, and February 17, when the mine was reopened following issuance of a state court injunction against the picketing. One of these incidents involved overt interference by pickets with an employee's attempts to enter the mining, area: Mitchell, on February 16, was compelled to leave his car on Riddles Run Road by a group of 20 pickets as a guarantee that he was entering the mining area only to collect his paycheck and would not remain there to perform any work.2 These various circumstances, considered together, indicate a pattern of coercive conduct on Respondents' part which, we find, tended to, and was in fact designed to, interfere with employees' exercise of their Section 7 -rights to refrain from engaging in union activity. Accordingly, we affirm the Trial Examiner's Section 8(b)(1)(A) finding, as well as his conclusion that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) by engaging in improper recognitional picketing. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, United Mine Workers of America and United Mine Workers of America, District 6, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing employees of Weirton Construction Company by mass picketing conducted in such a manner as to cause employees to fear physical injury from entering or leaving working areas. (b) Picketing or causing to be picketed or threatening to picket Weirton Construction Company ' under conditions prohibited by Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring said employer to recognize or bargain with them as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees, or forcing or requiring said employees to select or accept Respondents as their collective-bargaining representative during any period when Weirton is 'Thus, Vetter warned Balletto that a couple of people at a nearby mine who had tried to "break" the picket line had been hurt and a few cars had been damaged. While there is no evidence that Vitter's comment to Balletto was heard by any rank and file employee, we think it is reasonable to infer, given the small size of the operation and the above-noted circumstances of the picketing, that Balletto could be reasonably expected to convey the substance of the threat to the employees As employee Mitchell was leaving the mining area after mining operations had ceased, a picket came to his car and said "there wasn't any sense in coming back to work the next day." A minute later, Vitter, called over to the car by the picket, informed Mitchell that the "job wouldn't go" until the Independent Union, representing the Weirton employees, was ousted 'Mitchell was also involved in the other incident On February 15, he was warned by Vitter, whom he visited at the UMW office to inquire about the duration of the strike, that the trouble at Weirton would continue as long as the Independent continued to represent the employees 174 NLRB No. 52 UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DIST. NO. 6 recognizing another union as bargaining representative of such employees and a question concerning representation may not appropriately be raised. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees of Weirton Construction Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at their offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by their representatives, shall be posted by the Respondents, immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Promptly after receipt of copies of the said notice from the Regional Director, return to him signed copies for posting by the Charging Party (Weirton Construction Company) and the Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union, if they be willing, at all places in their respective offices where notices to employees or members, as the case may be, are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 'In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA AND OF UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 6 AND WEIRTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Weirton Construction Company by mass picketing conducted in such a manner as to cause employees to fear physical injury from entering or leaving working areas. WE WILL NOT in any other manner coerce or restrain employees of Weirton Construction Company in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed or threaten to picket Weirton Construction' Company where an object thereof is forcing or requiring Weirton to recognize or bargain with us as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees, or forcing or requiring said employees to select or accept us as their collective-bargaining representative, where 345 Weirton has lawfully recognized, in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act, another labor organization, and a question concerning representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the said Act. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA AND UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 6 (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Federal Office Building, Room 1695, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, Telephone 216-522-3715. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION JERRY B. STONE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was tried pursuant to due notice on June 4, 1968, at Steubenville, Ohio. The charge in Case 8-CB-1239 was filed on February 13, 1968, by registered mail, and was received by Respondents on February 14, 1968. The charge in Case 8-CP-69 was filed on February 12, 1968, served on Respondents on February 12, 1968, by registered mail, and was actually received by Respondents on February 13, 1968. The consolidated complaint in this matter issued on March 21, 1968. The issues in this case essentially are (1) whether Respondents engaged in coercive picketing and conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A), and (2) whether Respondents engaged in recognitional picketing at a time when such type picketing was illegal and violative of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act. All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate in the proceeding, and the Respondents and General Counsel filed briefs which have been considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:' FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER' Weirton Construction Company (herein sometimes called Weirton) is a West Virginia corporation, with its principal office and place of business located in Weirton, West Virginia. It is engaged in the business of general contracting and the strip mining of coal, and has strip mines located at Riddles Run, Brillant, Ohio, and at Rayland, Ohio. In the course and conduct of its business operations, Weirton annually receives products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Ohio. Further, annually, in the course and conduct of its business operations, it mines, sells, and distributes products valued in excess of $50,000, which products are furnished to the Ohio Power Company, All credibility resolutions made herein are based on a composite evaluation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the probabilities of the evidence as a whole. The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein. 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which is a public utility affecting commerce, and which annually receives gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and transmits electrical power valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the State of Ohio. Based upon the foregoing, and as conceded by the Respondents, it is concluded and found that Weirton Construction Company is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. _ II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED' United Mine Workers of America and United Mine Workers of America, District 6, are now, and have been at all times material herein, labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.4 It is so concluded and found. Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union since January 1967 has existed for the purpose of being a bargaining agent for the employees of Weirton Construction Company with respect to such matters as wages, vacations, hours, and grievances Said Independent Union has a collective-bargaining agreement for such employees with Weirton Construction Company. Employees of Weirton Construction Company participate in said Union. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded and found that Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union is now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES' As indicated, the issues in this proceeding concern the events of January and February 1968, whether picketing that occurred at Weirton Construction Company was for an illegal object (recognition) and whether such picketing and related conduct was coercive in nature. Background Weirton Construction Company is engaged in the strip mining of coal at locations near Brillant, Ohio. More precisely, the strip mining is located about 40 or 50 feet off a road called Riddles Run Road which runs west of a road called Route 7. There are three access roads from Riddles Run Road to the mining area which extends for about a mile along the area adjacent to Riddles Run Road. Weirton Construction Company also has a dock and coal-loading facility at Riddles Run Road in Rayland, Ohio. Weirton Construction Company in January and February 1968 employed around 15 men in the mine stripping area and around 6 men at the dock and coal-loading facility. The controlling interest in Weirton Construction Company is owned by Pennweir Construction Company. 'The facts are based upon the pleadings , admissions therein, and the credited testimony of McKim 'United Mine Workers of America and United Mine Workers of America, District 6, shall sometimes herein be referred to as UMW and as District 6. 'The facts relating to the unfair labor practices are based upon the exhibits, the pleadings and admissions therein, stipulation , and the credited aspects of all of the witnesses in the proceeding Most of the facts are not in real dispute, and where such facts are in dispute, the resolution of such dispute is indicated in the facts as recited The president of Pennweir' Construction Company and Weirton Construction Company is the same individual Weirton Construction Company commenced opening the strip mine facilities known as the Riddles Run Road Mine in November 1966. Around this time five or six men were sent by Pennweir Construction to the 'Weirton Construction Company's Riddles Run Road mine to break in a new drag line machine and to test it out. The men from Pennweir Construction Company were paid by Pennweir Construction Company. Weirton Construction Company paid Pennweir Construction Company for such work. At this time Weirton Construction Company had five or six employees of its own. This situation continued until around March 1967 when Pennweir Construction Company employees ceased their work and returned to home base in Pennsylvania. At various times during the period November 1966 through March 1967 various officials of District 5 and District 6 of the United Mine Workers of America visited the Weirton Construction Company mine site involved herein, requested permission to talk to the employees involved, and talked to such employees in groups and individually about the United Mine Workers of America. Such representatives spoke to the employees of advantages of the UMW organization and otherwise attempted to get the employees to become members of the United Mine Workers of America. At some point of time after the execution of the collective-bargaining agreement between Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union and Weirton Construction Company, District 5 of the United Mine Workers of America demanded that Weirton Construction Company recognize it as bargaining agent of the employees at the Riddles Run Road mine. District 5 and District 6 of the United Mine Workers had agreed that District 6 would waive its territorial jurisdictional claim to representation of such employees because of District 5's contention of contractual rights arising out of a collective-bargaining agreement between District 5 of UMW and Pennweir Construction Company. District 5 of UMW presented its contentions to the Weirton Construction Company that District 5 was entitled to recognition because of the employees from Pennweir Construction Company who worked at Weirton Construction Company between November 1966 and March 1967.6 Officials of Weirton Construction Company apparently at the first meeting, and clearly at meetings in May and June 1967, contended that Pennweir was a separate corporation, that Weirton Construction Company had paid Pennweir for the work done by Pennweir personnel, and that Weirton Construction Company had recognized the Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union and could not recognize District 5 of the United Mine Workers of America ' 'Williams, president of District 6 of the UMW, who was nol present at the time, placed the initial demand in January or February 1967 Conti, vice president of Weirton Construction Company, who was not present at the time, placed the initial meeting of a demand negotiation type in March 1967. Considering all of the foregoing and the consistencies of the evidence, I find the evidence to persuade that the initial demand was made after the contract was entered into by Weirton Construction Company and Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union in the latter part of January 1967 'Conti, at one point in his testimony, testified that Williams (president of" District 6 of the UMW ) was present at the May 1967 meeting between Weirton Construction Company and the UMW officials On cross-examination Conti indicated that he was not sure that Williams was there I credit Williams' denial that he was at any of the "demand" meetings. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DIST. NO. 6 Setting in January 1968; Conclusions as to Setting; The Lawfully Recognized Union Considering all of the foregoing, it may be summarized that in January 1968 Weirton Construction Company had a collfective-bargaining agreement with the Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union which by its terms was effective until January 1, 1971. In addition to the facts previously set forth it is overwhelmingly established that the vast majority of the Weirton Construction Company employees at the mine involved were members of the Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union who allowed their dues to be deducted by virtue of checkoff authorizations. The Respondents contend that the Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union was not a lawfully recognized Union The General Counsel contends that Section 10(b) of the Act, with reference to a prohibition on the prosecution of an unfair labor practice charge as to events occurring over 6 months before the filing of the charge, insulates attack on the legality of the contract involved or the recognition of the union involved I find it unnecessary to pass upon this last issue. Considering all of the evidence, including the presumption of regularity which must attach to the execution of the agreement involved and the lack of persuasive evidence to overcome such presumption, I find it proper to conclude and do conclude that the Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union was the lawfully recognized representative of the employees involved in January 1968 and at all times material herein UMW Dispute with Weirton The foregoing facts clearly reveal that until June 1967 the United Mine Workers Union, and its Districts 5 and 6, disputed the recognition of the Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union as bargaining representative of Weirton Construction Company employees. Picketing and Coercive Conduct Events of January - February 1968 at Weirton Construction Company' On January 30, 1968, Foreman Michael Balletto was informed by some of Weirton Construction Company employees that four carloads of UMW men had been at the main mine site and had told them that they were coming back the next morning and shut the mine down. On January 31, 1968, around 7:30 a.m. to 8 a.m., about 50 pickets arrived in 10 to 15 cars at the main work area of the Weirton Construction Company. Thereupon 10 to 15 pickets located themselves at each of the three entrances to the access woods to the mine area, and the remainder were spread out along the road adjacent to the strip mining operations Other cars (10 to 15 in number) arrived thereafter with approximately 20 pickets. Approximately 10 to 15 pickets detached themselves from the major body and went to picket the Rayland loading area. Thus, there were approximately 45 to 50 pickets picketing the main mine area where around 15 employees 'The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Mitchell, Charles Balletto , Conti, and Michael Balletto and a fair inference therefrom. Although Charles Balletto in his testimony appears to place the initial picketing on January 30, 1968, 1 am convinced, considering the testimony of Michael Balletto and the other witnesses , that the initial picketing eccurred on January 31, 1968 347 normally worked and there were 10 to 15 pickets at the loading area where 5 to 6 employees normally worked.' After January 31, 1968, it is clear that similar picketing occurred on every workday until February 16, 1968. On February 16, 1968, a State court injunction was filed, restraining picketing of certain types and numbers. It is clear that Weirton Construction Company, after the picketing on January 31, 1968, shut down its operations until February 5, 1968. It is not clear whether the picketing that occurred after January 31, 1968, continued throughout the work shift times or occurred only around commencement of separate work shift times. Just prior to February 5, 1968, there were television and newspaper stories indicating that various picketing activities at various mines in the area were ceasing. Weirton Construction Company sent word to its employees that it was working its mine on February 5, 1968. On February 5, 1968, around 8 a.m. when Weirton Construction Company was commencing to resume operations at the Riddles Run Road mine, between 15 and 25 carloads of pickets, numbering around 50 to 75 pickets, again appeared at the mine site area and resumed picketing. On this occasion Rudolf Vitter, International representative of the United Mine Workers assigned to District 6, was present. During the time of the picketing Vitter spoke to employee Mitchell and to Supervisor Charles J. Balletto. The events occurring in Mitchell's presence are essentially revealed by the following credited excerpts from his testimony: Q. And what did you do after you arrived at work" A. I parked my car by the office' and got a ride to the drag line which was about a mile away and I started the machine up and it had been pretty cold so I had to swing the machine around to loosen it up a little bit and I noticed in the pit a truck coming back in and dumping its load of coal and the job foreman, Frank Balletto was there and I said, it looks like something was going on. Maybe he should find out and he went down to check on it and came back and told me to shut the machine down again, that the pickets were here and we were going to be down for a while. Q. And about what time was this when you shut down the machine" A. This was shortly after eight. Q. And then what did you do after you shut down the drag line? A. I went back to the office - I got a ride from the drag line to the office to my car and I started to leave. A. Well, there was a driveway that comes off Riddles Run Road and makes a U-shape in front of the office and goes back on Riddles Run Road and I started to drive off onto Riddles Run Road and the car in front of me was stopped and some of the men, they were talking to the driver and one of these gentlemen came 'Michael Balletto estimated the number of pickets as being 50 and the number of cars as being 10 to 15. Mitchell estimated the number of pickets to be around 70 and the number of cars as being around 30 to 35 . Charles Balletto estimated the number of pickets at the Rayland area to be around 15 to 20. It is clear that these estimations could vary depending upon the time that observation was made. It is also reasonable to believe that all of the pickets did not arrive at the same time and that some of the 70 pickets observed by Mitchell would be ones who later went to the Rayland area. 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD back to me and they told me there wasn't any sense in my coming back to work the next day, and I asked him; well, what can we do to straighten this situation out? What can we do to go back to work and I asked him if he had any cards or what were they going to do and he called Mr Vitter from the picket line; called him over to my car. Q. And did Mr. Vitter come to your car? A. Yes, he did. * * Q. Now, could you tell us what Mr. Vitter said to you and what you said to him? A. Well, he came to the car and he told me that this Independent Union was no good, that we could take this Independent contract and wipe our hindends with it. That this job would not go as long as the Independent Union was there and he also told me that it wasn't up to the men to have an election, that the Company would have, I suppose, to sign a contract with them or whatever the procedure is. I don't know. Q Sign a contract with who? A. With the United Mine Workers Q. And, was anything else said then? A. No. I don't think there was; he was pretty angry. The events occurring in Charles J. Balletto's presence are essentially revealed by the following credited excerpts from his testimony: A. On February 5, I spoke to Mr. Rudy Vitter at our plant. This was late in the morning around 8.30 or 9:00 o'clock and I was speaking to Mr. Vitter. Q. Where did you talk to Mr. Vitter? A. The -- below our office. I shook hands with him. Q. Can you tell us what was said at that time by yourself and Mr. Vitter? A. Well, we called the men out to work Monday because we heard the strike was over according to radio and television and after seeing him I asked him what this was all about. He said they were representing the United Mine Workers Union and they were picketing the mine and they didn't recognize the Union that the men had so he told me if I wanted to go back to call Tom Williams who is President of District 6 and then we could go back to work and he said that the rank and file of the United Mine Workers does not recognize this union. Q. What union? A. The United Mine Workers Union and he said they would continue picketing our premises until - he says, we just come from the Teramana Brothers Coal Mining operation and he said a couple of men got hurt because they tried to break the picket line and a few cars were damaged. Then the men were threatening me and calling me names. Weirton Construction Company again on February 5, 1968, shut down its operations after the foregoing picketing. As indicated, it is clear that picketing substantially similar to the January 31, 1968, picketing occurred on all workdays until February 16, 1968, at the main mining area and at the loading area It is not clear whether such picketing continued daily during all standard work hours or only occurred at the normal shift starting and changing times. It is not clear whether or not Weirton Construction Company engaged in some working operations prior to February 16, 1968. It is noted that the cessation of picketing after February 16, 1968, occurred after the issuance of a State court injunction restricting the type of picketing and the number of pickets. Certain events, however, occurred after February 5 and prior to February 19, 1968, which are herein set out, On Thursday, February 15, 1968, employee Mitchell went to the United Mine Workers office in Bellaire, Ohio.1 o There Mitchell saw and spoke to Vitter again, What occurred is revealed by the following excerpts from Mitchell's credited testimony: A. Well, like I said mainly I went to see Mr. Vitter just to talk to him and find out just about how long this job shutdown was going to last and then I also went to tell him - Q. Did you ask him this question; how long the shutdown was going to last? A. Yes, I did. I can't remember word for word how this conversation went but he said something to the effect that as long as we have this Independent Union that we are going to have trouble there so I asked Mr. Vitter or these three gentlemen how we could go about getting rid of the Independent Union and they proceeded to tell me and I also told Mr. Vitter that I had made a statement involving the conversation of February 5th; the date before their meeting with Mr. Vitter and these gentlemen. The next day Mitchell went to the Weirton Construction Company mining area. What occurred is revealed by the following excerpts from his ciedited testimony: A. Yes, I was supposed to go to work this Friday and I was supposed to go on the afternoon shift and I went to the job and there were a group of men there and they told me that the job wasn't they asked me if I worked there and I said yes and they said there is not going to be any work there today and I said today is payday and I wanted to get my paycheck; I would like to get my check and they wanted to know how they could be sure I would come back out and I told them I would leave my car there on the road where they were. Q. And how many men were present? A. I don't know. Around 20, 1 would say. Q. Where were they standing? A. On Riddles Run Road. As indicated previously, the picketing ceased around February 16, 1968. On February 17, 1968, Williams, president of District 6, sent a letter to all local unions of District 6. The letter referred to a court injunction that had issued relating to the Teramana Brothers Coal Company. In the letter Williams set forth "We will continue our efforts to organize the Teramana Brothers Coal Mining Company and all other non-union mines in District 6 in a lawful manner and will appreciate your help in this regard." It should be noted that Williams considered all mines that were not under contract witth the UMW to be nonunion mines Respondent's Evidence In addition to the facts set above, it may be stated that the Respondent presented for consideration only the testimony of Williams, president of District 6 of the UMW. In essence the Respondents presented evidence to establish that the January - February 1968 picketing was spontaneous in nature and in sympathy with an incident that occurred wherein a picket died in a UMW-Solar Fuel Company dispute in Pennsylvania. In essence Williams "Mitchell, it is noted, was secretary-treasurer of the lawfully recognized Independent Union UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DIST. NO. 6 testified that he had no direct knowledge of many of the events but understood that picketing occurred at mines all over the area, that companies under contract with the UMW complained, that he had a meeting and urged local unions to go back to work because of their contracts, that he had no authority to instruct others to cease or continue picketing, and that he had not authorized or instructed UMW agents or employees otherwise to engage in coercive or recognitional picketing. Although Williams' personal appearance was that of a person of great dignity, he appeared to search carefully for answers at times and to attempt to avoid specifics, especially with reference to reports made to him about the picketing and to identity of pickets. He frequently stated that he could not recall any specific reports and stated at one place, "Now, who they were on the picket line I don't know because I was never there and I never wanted to know who was on the picket line " Williams was prone to show knowledge when leading questions by his own counsel were used, and to have a lack of specific knowledge on cross-examination. The totality of the direct and cross-examination of Williams ultimately revealed that he knew more than he would readily answer to initially and that his answers were evasive to a critical degree. It is clear from Williams' testimony that he had reason to believe that mass picketing was occurring at the Weirton Construction Company mine sites and at other non-UMW mines, that he knew that employees from mines represented by the UMW were picketing at other non-UMW mines for which the UMW contended recognitional rights, and that he knew these employees were picketing for resultant recognition and UMW contracts. Considering Williams' testimony as indicated above on crucial points, I discredit his testimony to the extent that it may be construed that he did not have reports of the activities of Vitter and the pickets as set forth previously, and to the effect that he had not authorized or instructed Vitter to engage in the activities engaged in. Considering all of the facts, I find it hard to believe and do not believe that Vitter did not report his plans and activities to Williams. On the contrary I find it proper from all of the evidence to conclude that Vitter did report his plans and activities. I find it hard to believe that Vitter would have engaged in the activities as set forth previously without authorization or instruction, at least implied. Accordingly, I conclude and find that President Williams of District 6 of the United Mine Workers did in fact authorize Vitter to carry on the picketing and recognitional activities that did in fact occur. Conclusions The issues and contentions of the parties in this proceeding, like most proceedings, are resolved essentially by the fact determinations. In this regard I note that, contrary to the General Counsel, responsibility for coercive and illegal recognitional picketing cannot be placed upon Respondent because of the conduct of alleged agent Kubic. The evidence is insufficient to establish the person referred to as Kubic as being the Kubic who is an agent of Respondent District 6. Considering all of the facts found herein, it is clear and I conclude and find that the picketing at the Weirton Construction Company mine sites and dock facilities was coercive in nature. Thus the number of pickets involved as compared to the working area and number of employees 349 involved in work , in context with the statements and remarks of Vitter, reveals such picketing to be mass picketing and coercive in nature as directed toward the supervisors and employees of Weirton Construction Company. Further, the statements of Vetter and pickets to supervisors and employees of Weirton Construction Company, Williams' testimony as to what the pickets told him concerning the purpose of the picketing , and the facts as a whole reveal the picketing to have been engaged in for the purpose of recognition of the United Mine Workers of America as bargaining representative of Weirton' s employees, for employee selection of the UMW and District 6 as their bargaining agent, and for a resultant contract , notwithstanding the fact that Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union was the lawfully recognized collective-bargaining agent of the employees of Weirton. The evidence is clear that neither United Mine Workers of America nor its District 6 are the certified bargaining representatives of the Weirton Construction Company employees. It is clear also that both Respondent District 6 and Respondent United Mine Workers of America are to be held responsible for such picketing . Thus, Vitter, International representative of Respondent United Mine Workers of America, clearly acted as an agent for both Respondents Respondent District 6 is subordinate and under the control of the United Mine Workers of America. Vitter is assigned by the United Mine Workers of America to District 6, and his primary duties are to engage in union organizational work and such other duties as assigned by the District's president . It is clear that he was engaged in such duties in this case and that neither the United Mine Workers of America nor District 6 took any steps to disavow or disassociate themselves from his actions. Considering all of the foregoing , it is clear and I conclude and find that Respondents District 6 and United Mine Workers of America, as alleged, have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8 (b)(7)(A) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the business operations of the Weirton Construction Company described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Weirton Construction Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Mine Workers of America and United Mine Workers of America, District 6 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section (7) of the Act, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. By picketing Weirton Construction Company with an object of forcing or requiring Weirton Construction Company to recognize and bargain with Respondents as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees, and with a further object of forcing or requiring Weirton Construction Company employees to accept or select Respondents as their collective- bargaining representative at a time when Respondents were not certified as such representative and Weirton Construction Company had lawfully recognized the Independent Strip & Coal Miners Union as the collective -bargaining representative of its employees and when a question concerning representation could not be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(7)(A) of the Act. 5. 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 omitted from publication.]