United Electrical, Radio and Manchine Wkrs.

284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America (U.E.), and its Local 218 and Bryant Grinder Corporation . Case 1-C B- 145 7 August 29, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA On May 14, 1969, Trial Examiner Jerry B Stone, issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, 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 tiled exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a supporting statement, and the Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision and in response to Respondents' exceptions. 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 made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, 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 Respondents, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (U E ), and its Local 218, Springfield, Vermont, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 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 March 5 and 13, 1969, at Springfield, Vermont The charge was filed on December 4, 1968 The complaint in this matter was issued on January 6, 1969 The issues in this case concern whether Respondents have restrained and coerced Bryant Grinder Corporation employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act Thus the issue is whether Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate in the proceeding The hearing in this matter was initially set for January 29, 1969 On January 21, 1969, the hearing was postponed to February 19, 1969 In the meantime, it appears that on January 7, 1969, the Governor of Vermont appointed a mediator, Albert Cree, with reference to a labor dispute between the Charging Party and the Respondents. On February 14, 1969, at the request of Cree, the hearing was again postponed from February 19, 1969, to March 5, 1969 On March 5, 1969, after the hearing had been opened, appearances made, and formal exhibits received, Respondents' counsel made motion for continuance of the hearing Counsel related and argued to the effect that Mediator Cree desired such continuance, that Cree from January 7 to date had only been available for a limited number of times and was now available for mediation of the labor dispute. It further appeared that the Charging Party had secured a State court injunction concerning the conduct complained of in this proceeding and that there was pending litigation concerning contempt questions in the State proceeding as well as various other legal questions thereto. Counsel argued in effect the relevance of fifth amendment rights as to his witnesses because of the several proceedings and the fact that he might not use such witnesses in this proceeding for such reason Counsel also argued the possibility that certain ULP charges by the Respondents might be meritorious and might ultimately be properly consolidated with the instant proceeding Counsel urged a 3-week postponement The Trial Examiner denied the motion for continuance on such basis However, the Trial Examiner, after having the parties ascertain Cree's exact availability, indicated that he would continue the hearing in accomodation with the related matter until March 7, 1969, would take evidence on that date, and if necessary continue the case into the next week The Trial Examiner, upon a plea of personal convenience by Respondents' counsel, then modified his intended ruling and granted a recess in the hearing until March 13, 1969 It was made clear to all parties that the Trial Examiner intended to convene the hearing on March 13, 1969, and that the hearing would start and continue unto the finish from that point On March 13, 1969, the hearing reconvened. The General Counsel moved that the Trial Examiner approve an informal unilateral type settlement agreement as disposition of the case The Respondents' counsel concurred and argued in support of said motion, and Charging Party's counsel opposed said motion. The Board's normal policy for settlement of cases at the stage of litigation involved is to require a formal settlement ' The General Counsel's motion for approval of the settlement agreement was denied. Respondent's counsel again made motions for continuance. In major effect Respondents' counsel reiterated the same grounds for continuance as before It appears that in the meantime a proceeding on contempt of the State court injunction had commenced on March 12, 1969, that plaintiffs had concluded their case, that Respondents had been represented by other counsel, and that Respondents were to put their defense on at this time in that proceeding. Respondents' counsel argued the 'A type which completely eliminates the possibility of litigation on the issues involved 178 NLRB No. 49 UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WKRS. 285 conflicting timing of the proceedings Respondents' counsel was requested to advise as to when the State proceeding would conclude. Respondents' counsel indicated that he could not say, that in any event that he might have to file a mandamus action, and that he would not be in this proceeding on the next day because he was going to be at a mediation session headed by Cree. Respondents' counsel's motion was denied. Respondents' counsel was advised that the hearing would proceed, and that at the end of the General Counsel's case consideration would be given to any witness problem that might exist Respondents' counsel then stated that he was withdrawing from this proceeding because he was going to represent the Respondents in the State court case. Respondents' counsel was told in effect that permission would not be granted to him to withdraw from this proceeding, that the hearing would continue Notwithstanding the foregoing, Respondents' counsel Donner and Representative Harley thereupon left the hearing and remained absent during the rest of the hearing. The hearing continued to its conclusion. Brief filing date was set for April 2, 1969, and the General Counsel was requested to so advise Respondents' counsel On March 25, 1969, Respondents' counsel requested and secured an extension of time until April 14, 1969, for the filing of briefs Later the General Counsel and Charging Party requested and received an additional extension of time to file briefs. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Charging Party and have been considered.' Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of witnesses, I hereby make the following FINDINGS OF FACT' I THE BUSINESS Of THE EMPLOYER Bryant Grinder Corporation is and has been at all times material herein a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Vermont. 'Although Respondents were not granted permission to withdraw from the proceedings, they did physically do so Respondents' counsel did obtain an extension of time for the filing of briefs but did not file a brief The facts as to Respondents' argument for a continuance of the hearing are in the record and referred to herein The rulings as made at the hearing were of such a nature that had Respondents complied therewith , the hearing would have proceeded as any other similar hearing I note with respect to somewhat similar contentions that court and Board cases support the rulings made at the hearing See United States v Marcia Lyon and Anton Lysczvk. 397 F 2d 505, cert denied 393 U S 846 See also Allen H Kraft, d/b/a Resionaire Bedding Company , 164 NLRB No 102, and cases cited therein In addition it may be noted that the Charging Party in its brief has cited many cases having similar holdings I do not find it necessary, in view of the foregoing, to cite such cases 'The General Counsel's complaint in this matter was issued on January 6, 1969 Respondent United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America (U E ), filed an answer thereto on February 13, 1969 Respondent Local 218 did not file an answer to said complaint Pursuant to National Labor . Relations Board' s Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended, Section 102 20, 1 hereby deem the allegations of the complaint to be admitted to be true and so found with respect to Respondent Local 218 The facts set forth herein with respect to the issues pertaining to Respondent United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America (U E ) are based upon a composite of the pleadings and admissions therein, and the credited testimony of Lester, Ellis, Clough, Clark, Cohen, Lynch, Shulleberg , Strong, and Davis Further , even if Respondent Local 218 were deemed to have answered in the same manner as Respondent UE, the facts herein clearly support a finding of violative conduct as alleged Said corporation is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of machine tools, internal grinders, and related products at its plant in Springfield, Vermont. Said corporation annually purchases and receives at its Springfield plant materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of Vermont, and annually sells and ships from its Springfield plant products valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of Vermont. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded and found that Bryant Grinder Corporation is and has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondents United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (U.E.) and its Local 218 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It is so concluded and found III UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Introduction' Bryant Grinder Corporation is located at 257 Clinton Street, Springfield, Vermont The Bryant plant property extends approximately 650 feet alongside Clinton Street. The property is fenced and has four gates for entry upon Bryant property from Clinton Street Gates numbered 1, 2, and 4 are 24-feet wide and each has a swinginggate- 10-feet wide, and a sliding gate-14-feet wide. The issues in this case concern activities at gates 1 and 2. As of November 4, 1968, Bryant Grinder Corporation employed 650 employees Approximately 350 of their employees comprised a bargaining unit which since June 1968 has been represented by Local 218 of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (U.E.). On November 4, 1968, at the end of the second shift, Local 218 of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (U.E.) called a strike among the employees in the bargaining unit at Bryant Grinder Corporation. On November 4, 1968, at the end of the second shift United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (U E.) and its Local 218 established a picket line at the gates of Bryant's Springfield plant. B. Respondents' Responsibility The facts regarding the conduct complained of as being violative are set out in section C which follows in this Decision. By virtue of the pleadings, Respondent United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (U.E.) places in issue the question of its responsibility for the acts complained of, as well as the question of proof of illegal acts. The facts5 clearly establish that a strike was called among the employees of the bargaining unit represented by Local 218 at Bryant Grinder Corporation and the Respondents established a picket line at the Bryant Grinder Corporation at the end of the second shift on November 4, 1968 The facts also clearly establish that at the commencement of the strike and picket line activity that James M. Kane, Edward Solomon, Sabin Morris, and Emmett Gavin were active in the direction of the 'The facts are based upon the pleadings , admitted and undenied , and the credited testimony of Lester 'The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of 286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD picket line activities The facts further reveal that James M. Kane was Local 218's business agent, that Edward Solomon was Local 218's president, that Sabin Morris was Local 218's secretary,' and that Emmett Gavin was the chief steward for Local 218. The facts further reveal that on various occasions individuals holding various positions with the Respondents engaged in misconduct at the picket line and away from the picket line, or were present when such conduct occurred Thus, among these individuals, Peter Palmer was identified as an International organizer, Michael Anderson as a Local 218 negotiating committee member, K Whittemore as a Local 218 steward, Mr Hueec as a Local 218 steward, Fred Mellish as a Local 218 negotiating committee member, Leander Patria as a Local 218 steward, and a William Jackman as a picket. The facts reveal, as set out in detail in section C, that at the commencement of picketing, controlled and directed by Kane, Solomon, Morris, and Gavin, on November 5, 1968, there was mass picketing, 85 pickets in number, that Manager Lester's car was beaten by fists, was rocked (side to side), that picket signs were held in front of Lester's windshield to block his view and to hinder his entrance through the gate upon plant property, and that such was done in the presence of picketing employees. Thereafter, on other occasions similar picketing conduct occurred. Considering the facts relating to establishment and control of the picket line, the union positions held by Kane, Solomon, Morris, and Gavin, I conclude and find that Kane, Solomon, Morris, and Gavin were agents at all times relevant herein for the Respondents. Considering the pattern of conduct established on November 5, 1968, by the foregoing agents of the Respondents and the similarity thereto and allied nature thereof of the conduct engaged in by Palmer, Solomon, Kane, Anderson, Whittemore, Tillson, Hussey, Mellish, Clark, Patria, and Jackman after November 5 and during the continuation of picketing activities, I conclude and find that the foregoing and other unknown pickets, on the occasions of their conduct set forth later herein in section C, were agents for the Respondents at the time of such conduct ' C. The "Incidents " of Violative Conduct I Lester, manager of manufacturing for Bryant, credibly testified to the effect that on the morning of November 5, 1968, he tried to enter the plant premises by driving his car through the entrance at gate I Lester credibly testified to the effect that on this occasion there Lester, Ellis, Clough, Clark, Cohen, Lynch, Shufleberg , Strong, and Davis, and a fair inference therefrom , and upon facts established by the pleadings `it is noted that in the pleadings Solomon was alleged to be Local 218's vice president It is also noted that the transcribed record refers to Sabin Morse as Local 218's secretary, that the complaint refers to a K Whittemore and the transcribed record to Whittemore, and that the complaint refers to a Mr Hussey and the transcribed record to a Hucce in my opinion the doctrine of idem sonans applies For purpose of convenience I shall use the names set forth in the pleadings With respect to the name Hueec used in the transcript and contended by the Charging Party to be with reference to "Hussey ," I do not think the doctrine of idem sonans applies In any event , whether or not such reference was to Hussey is immaterial The pleading refers to specific as well as unknown agents Additionally, there is some reference in briefs to minor misspelling of names of witnesses in the transcript It is clear that the references in the complaint, brief, and transcript are to the same persons 'See International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union (Sunset Line and Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487 were approximately 85 pickets , that pickets carried signs indicating that U.E Local 218 was on strike against the Bryant Corporation , that the pickets were massed in front of the entrance at gate 1, that pickets beat on his car with their fists, that pickets rocked his car (from side to side or front to rear), that pickets held signs in front of his windshield blocking his view, and that pickets directed loud and abusive language toward him. Lester credibly identified officials of U.E. Local 218 as being present and directing the picketing activities. He thus identified Local Business Agent James M. Kane, Local President Edward Solomon , Local Secretary Sabin Morris , and Local Chief Steward Gavin as being present and directing such activity As previously indicated, I have found that Kane, Solomon, Morris, and Gavin are agents of the Respondents Accordingly, I find it clear and I conclude and find that the picketing conduct described above is conduct for which the Respondents are liable. It is also clear that such conduct constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.' I so conclude and find. 2 David A Shufleberg credibly testified to the effect that he worked for Bryant Grinder Corporation as a photographer and advertising assistant , and that during the strike commencing on November 5, 1968, he was assigned the task of photographing picket line activities. Shufleberg credibly testified to the effect that on the morning of November 5, 1968, he saw a mass of pickets, numbering around 40, at gate 2. Shufleberg further credibly testified to the effect that on such occasion Chief Steward Gavin told him that if there were any trouble that he (Shufleberg) had better point the camera the other way As previously indicated, I have found that Gavin was an agent for the Respondents. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the picketing conduct described above is conduct for which the Respondents are liable. It is clear that such conduct is violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act I so conclude and find. 3 Sam Cohen credibly testified to the effect that he was a company chauffeur Cohen credibly testified that after the strike commenced on November 4, 1968, when he had occasions to enter the plant premises, he encountered difficulties, that pickets blocked his way, and that he could only move his car and progress "foot by foot." Cohen credibly testified to the effect that during the first 2 weeks of the strike (commencing on November 4, 1968) International Union Organizer Peter Palmer had been calling him names, that during the second week of the strike on one occasion Palmer left the gate, pointed his finger at Cohen, and stated, "We are going to get you" As previously indicated, I have found that Palmer, other union officials, and pickets are agents for the Respondents. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the picketing conduct described above is conduct for which the Respondents are liable. It is clear that the described conduct is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act I so conclude and find 4 Lester credibly testified to the effect that on November 21, 1968, at the end of the second shift, he was driving a company station wagon Lester credibly testified 'See International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Locals S-426 and S-429, 166 NLRB 507, enfd 243 F 2d 745 (C A 5, 1957), concerning conduct directed to nonemployees but in presence of employees (pickets, etc ) as being coercive conduct UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WKRS. 287 to the effect that he was about to deliver an order to a customer On this occasion as he approached the Bryant Grinder Corporation plant gate for the purpose of leaving the premises, he was encountered by pickets What occurred is revealed by the following excerpts from Lester's testimony A At the end of the shift on that date I was driving a company beach wagon with a very urgent shipment to satisfy an important customer's demand to get a machine back into production and I was driving through gate two and I was stopped by a group of pickets lead by Mr Anderson and Mr. Mellish. Q Could you tell us what happened? A. They stopped my car by massing in front of it and looked through the windows to see what was inside. When they saw I had a machine slide in the back of the beach wagon they started to rock the car and Mr Mellish tried to open the door on the driver's side and when he saw it was locked he tried to break the window with his fist and Mr Anderson was pounding on the windshield and both men said they were going to get me and they would break my neck and other similar language A I moved very slowly through the picket line by putting one foot on the brake and the other on the accelerator so that I could move at the slowest pace possible to force my way through the pickets before they could succeed in breaking a window and getting at me and I managed to get through the pickets in this manner and they then followed me to the trucking terminal and -- Lester credibly testified to the effect that the pickets numbered about 20, and that Putnam and Jewell were the pickets who followed him in a car away from the plant As previously indicated, I have found that the pickets who engaged in conduct similar to the November 5, 1968, conduct of Kane and other union officials are agents of Respondents. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the picketing and car following conduct described above is conduct for which the Respondents are liable It is clear that the described conduct is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find 5 David A. Shufleberg credibly testified to the effect that about 3 weeks after November 4, 1968, Chief Steward Gavin spoke to him at gate 2, and Gavin told Shufleberg that if he got any pictures with his camera he had better get out of there fast As previously indicated, I have found that Chief Steward Gavin is an agent for the Respondents. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for the above-described conduct. It is clear that the described conduct is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act I so conclude and find 6 Francis Lynch testified to the effect that he worked as a painter at Bryant Grinder Corporation, that on November 26, 1968, at 7 20 a.m., he was stopped at the picket line by a Mr Hussey, that there were five or six pickets, that Hussey questioned him about the machines he (Lynch) had been working on, that Hussey became angry at his reply, and that Hussey told him, "We will get you, we know what's going on in there." Lynch credibly testified to the effect that on the evening of November 26, 1968, there were five or six pickets at the gate when he attempted to leave the plant in his car. Lynch credibly testified to the effect that the pickets "pounded" on his car, that the pickets cracked his "windshield," that after going up the street, he turned around and drove by to see if he could identify the pickets, that he did so and saw Hussey near the gate, that the pickets threw cans or sticks at his car, and that he later examined his car and in addition to the windshield damage he observed dents on his car As previously indicated, I have found that pickets who engaged in conduct similar to the November 5, 1968, conduct of Kane and other union officials to be agents of the Respondents Accordingly, I conclude and find the Respondents are liable for the above-described pickets' conduct. Such described conduct is clearly violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find 7. David A. Shufleberg credibly testified to the effect that on December 4, 1968, near a plant gate, a picket named Ira Clark spoke to him, that Clark asked if Shufleberg would be taking the camera and going home, that he told Clark no that he was not and asked, "Why9", and that Clark said that he (Shufleberg) would be missing the best action of all Shufleberg asked in effect what "action" Clark was speaking about. Clark replied in effect that the best action would be when Shufleberg was leaving the gate and going home As previously indicated, I have found that pickets who engaged in conduct similar to the conduct of Kane and other union officials, on November 5, 1968, and thereafter, are agents of the Respondents Accordingly, I conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for the above-described conduct of picket Clark Such described conduct is clearly violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act I so conclude and find. 8 Sidney Strong credibly testified to the effect that he was an employee of Bryant Grinder Corporation, and that on December 5, 1968, when he attempted to leave the parking lot in his car through the gate, he encountered trouble with the pickets. Strong credibly testified that his car was following the car in front closely, that Union Steward Whittemore stepped between the cars and angrily pounded upon the hood of Strong's car, and that Whittemore pounded with his fists the side windows of Strong's car as he attempted to leave As previously indicated, I have found that pickets who engaged in conduct similar to the November 5, 1968, and thereafter conduct of Kane and other union officials are agents for the Respondents. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for the conduct of Whittemore described above. Such described conduct is clearly coercive and violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find. 9. Edmund V. Davis credibly testified that he was an employee of Bryant Grinder Corporation, that on December 23, 1968, he encountered problems with pickets when he attempted to pass through the gate on return to work from the strike, that there were 30 to 40 pickets present at gate 2, that one picket opened his (Davis') car door and took a swing at him, that another picket, named Balsario, opened the door on the passenger's side of the car and jumped into the car, and that Balsario shook his fist at him (Davis) and said "We are going to get you for this " Davis credibly testified to the effect that during this incident pickets were pounding on his car and that ice and snow were being thrown at his car by the pickets Davis credibly testified to the effect that eventually he was able to inch his car through the gate Davis credibly testified to the effect that he saw Union Chief Steward Gavin on the picket line on this occasion. 288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As previously indicated , I have found that pickets who engage in similar conduct to that engaged in on November 5 by or in the presence of Kane and other union officials, or thereafter , are agents of the Respondents . Accordingly, I conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for the conduct of the pickets described above It is clear that such conduct is coercive and violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act It is so concluded and found 10. Clough credibly testified to the effect that he was an employee of Bryant Grinder Corporation, and that he encountered trouble with pickets when he attempted to return to work in his car through gate 1 on December 23, 1968. Clough credibly testified to the effect that there were a large number of pickets and that they blocked the gate in such a way that he could not enter, and that four police officers were unable to clear the way for him to enter the gate As a consequence Clough was unable to report to work on that date . As Clough attempted to drive through the gate, he encountered pickets as aforesaid With the pickets was Local 218' s president , Edward Solomon. Solomon told Clough to go home while he was able to do so. As previously indicated , I have found that Solomon and the pickets, engaged in such activity as described herein, were agents for the Respondents Accordingly, I find it clear and conclude and find that the picketing conduct described above is conduct for which the Respondents are liable. It is also clear that such conduct constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find. 11. Ellis credibly testified to the effect that he was an employee of Bryant Grinder Corporation, and that he remained out during the strike from November 4 to December 24, 1968. Ellis credibly testified to the effect that he returned to work on December 24, 1968, and that at the end of his work shift when he left the plant, he encountered trouble with the pickets Ellis credibly testified to the effect that as he drove his car out of the gate, a number of pickets stopped the car and beat on his car. He then drove out of the gate, stopped his car, and found when he checked for damage that his fender had been damaged and his license plate was bent . While Ellis had been going through the gate, the pickets directed a lot of "language" toward him When Ellis stopped his car to check his damage , three or four of the pickets came up to his car and resumed beating upon his car. As he was getting back into his car from checking the damage, one of the pickets pushed Ellis and Ellis received a cut on his head from hitting the door frame . Ellis credibly testified to the effect that one of the pickets present was a man he knew as a Mr. Hueec. As previously indicated, I have found that pickets engaged in the pattern of conduct as described above were agents for the Respondents . Accordingly, I find it clear and conclude and find that the picketing conduct described above is conduct for which the Respondents are liable. It is also clear that such conduct constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find. 12. Ellis credibly testified to the effect that he encountered trouble with pickets when he tried to return to work on December 26, 1968. Ellis credibly testified to the effect that on the morning of December 26, 1968, while trying to enter plant premises through a gate, he encountered Local 218's Business Agent Kane and between 15 and 20 pickets. Kane stood immediately in front of Ellis' car , blocking its way. Ellis had to move his car slowly to avoid hitting Kane During this time pickets were beating upon Ellis' car . Finally Kane stepped out of the way of Ellis' car and threw some substance from a coffee cup on the windshield of Ellis' car Ellis credibly testified to the effect that it was hard to remove the substance from the windshield. As previously indicated , I have found that Kane and the pickets engaged in such activity as described herein were agents for the Respondents . Accordingly, I find it clear and conclude and find that the picketing conduct described above is conduct for which the Respondents are liable. It is also clear that such conduct constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act I so conclude and find 13. Clark credibly testified to the effect that he was an employee of Bryant Grinder Corporation. Clark also credibly testified to the effect that he encountered some trouble with pickets on December 26, 1968, when he returned to work after a leave of absence due to military service. On this occasion there were 20 to 25 pickets moving around in front of his car at the gate The pickets were moved out of his way by police who were there, and he was able to enter the plant premises through the gate. As previously indicated , I have found that pickets engaged in the pattern of conduct described were agents for the Respondents Accordingly, I find it clear and conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for such conduct It is also clear that such conduct constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find 14. Davis credibly testified to the effect that he encountered difficulty with a man named Jackman, whom he knew as a union picket, on the way to work on the morning of December 26, 1968 On this occasion Davis left his home around 6 30 a.m in his car and drove to the home of a fellow employee named Grover Davis observed that his car was followed by two other cars driven by Bryant Grinder Corporation employees Jackman and Summers. Davis knew that Jackman had engaged in picketing activities on the union picket line at the Bryant plant site . Davis drove into Grover's driveway. Jackman drove up in his car and stopped at the driveway entrance, in effect blocking the driveway. Grover' s home is located between 2-1/2 and 3 miles from Bryant Grinder Corporation premises. Grover called the police and when the police arrived , Summers drove his car to a place near Jackman ' s car. Summers and Jackman then engaged in activity designed to appear as if Jackman were having difficulty in starting his car The hoods of Jackman's and Summers' cars were opened , cables connected, Jackman's car was started and left the driveway Davis was then able to drive from the driveway to go to work. For reasons previously indicated, I have concluded and found that pickets engaged in a pattern of conduct similar to conduct engaged in by Kane and other agents were agents of Respondents . The conduct described herein is similar in nature to the harassment committed by such agents on the picket line and is an extension of such threats as made on the picket line Accordingly, I conclude and find that Jackman and Summers on this occasion were acting as agents for the Respondents. Accordingly, the Respondents are liable for the described conduct. Considering the totality of all the events, the conduct constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. It is so concluded and found. 15. Clough credibly testified to the effect that he rode to work with employee Strong on December 30, 1968. Clough credibly testified to the effect that he and Strong encountered trouble with the pickets as a car in which he UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WKRS. 289 was riding tried to enter plant premises through the gate On this occasion there were 30 to 40 pickets present and the car was showered with blocks of ice and snow. As previously indicated, I have found that pickets engaged in the pattern of conduct described were agents for the Respondents Accordingly, I find it clear and conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for such conduct It is also clear that such conduct constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act I so conclude and find 16 Clark credibly testified to the effect that he encountered trouble with pickets when he attempted to drive through a gate into the plant premises on the morning of December 30, 1968. On this occasion the police tried to move the pickets out of the way so that Clark could drive through the gate. The pickets threw ice chunks at Clark's car, banged upon and kicked the side of Clark's car, and called Clark various names Later Clark checked his car for damage and found that some of the paint had been chipped off. As previously indicated, I have found that pickets engaged in the pattern of conduct described were agents for the Respondents Accordingly, I find it clear and conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for such conduct It is also clear that such conduct constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act I so conclude and find 17 Clough credibly testified to the effect that he encountered trouble with pickets when he attempted to enter plant premises through gate I on the morning of December 31, 1968 On this occasion there were 20 to 40 pickets in front of gate 1. As Clough approached gate I, some of the pickets yelled, "Here comes another scab, let's get him " Clough drove by gate I to the next gate, saw 20 to 40 more pickets, left, and went to town Clough returned to work by taxi and entered the gate in front of the office without incident For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude and find that the pickets on this occasion were acting as agents for the Respondents, and that the Respondents are liable for the described conduct The described conduct clearly constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find 18. Ellis and Strong credibly testified to the effect that they and two other employees were riding in a car together when they encountered trouble with pickets on the morning of December 31, 1968, at one of the plant gates. On this occasion there were 25 to 30 pickets in the gate area Union Steward Patria was with the pickets, and Patria picked up a piece of ice and banged on one of the car windows. Patria threw a piece of ice at the car window which broke the window Ellis was cut and injured by the breaking of the window glass On this occasion the driver's side window and front window of the car were broken There was also damage to the "hood of the roof of the car. For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude and find that Patria and the other pickets on this occasion were acting as agents for the Respondents, and that the Respondents are liable for the described conduct The described conduct clearly constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find. 19. Clark credibly testified to the effect that he encountered trouble with the pickets when he attempted to drive through a gate onto plant premises on the morning of December 31, 1968. On this occasion there were 25 to 30 pickets in the gate area One of the pickets was Local 218's Chief Steward Gavin On this occasion pickets threw ice chunks at Clark's car and banged upon and kicked the car Pickets also swore at Clark and called him names. Clark was able to get his car through the picket line and onto plant premises. He later checked his car for damages and found that his windshield was cracked, that the door on the driver's side was chipped (paint) and banged, the door on the passenger side was dented, and the lower panel of the right rear fender had two holes punched in it. For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude and find that Gavin and the other pickets on this occasion were acting as agents for the Respondents, and that the Respondents are liable for the described conduct. The described conduct clearly constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find 20 Clough credibly testified to the effect that he encountered trouble with pickets at gate 2 on the morning of January 2, 1969 On this occasion there were 20 to 40 pickets in the gate area One of the pickets was Local 218's Chief Steward Gavin On this occasion one of the pickets kept blocking Clough's way by getting in front of Clough's car The police, who were present, tried to open a way for Clough's car to proceed through the gate. Clough stopped to allow the police to clear the way. About this time Clough saw Gavin peer into his car from the passenger's side window. About this time one of the pickets smashed the windshield of Clough's car on the passenger side. For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude and find that Gavin and the other pickets on this occasion were acting as agents for the Respondents, and that the Respondents are liable for the described conduct. The described conduct clearly constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act I so conclude and find 21 Davis credibly testified to the effect that he encountered trouble with pickets when he drove his car, accompanied by a Mr. Shaw, through the gate onto plant premises on the morning of January 2, 1969 On this occasion there were 30 to 40 pickets in the gate area. Local 218's Business Agent Kane was one of the pickets. Kane, on this occasion, stood on the left side of Davis' car with his hand on the front fender. On this occasion a picket threw a large chunk of ice which struck the windshield of Davis' car and smashed it Pickets also pounded on the windows and the body of the car Davis checked his car later for damage and discovered scratches, a smashed taillight, and a twisted license plate in addition to the broken windshield. For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude and find that Kane and the other pickets on this occasion were acting as agents for the Respondents, and that the Respondents are liable for the described conduct. The described conduct clearly constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find 22. Ellis credibly testified to the effect that he encounted trouble with pickets on the morning of January 2, 1969, as he entered a plant gate with his car On this occasion there were 25 to 30 pickets in the gate area On this occasion as he went through the picket line, a picket broke the radio aerial off his car. For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude and find that the pickets on this occasion were acting as agents for the Respondents, and that Respondents are liable for the described conduct The described conduct clearly constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act I so conclude and find. 290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD D Summary The conduct described above and the facts deemed to be admitted with respect to UE Local 218 overwhelmingly reveal that the General Counsel has established his complaint allegations, and it is therefore concluded and found that (a) Respondents, by their agents, on various dates in November and December 1968, and in January 1969, threatened to inflict and did inflict bodily injury to, and damage to the property of, certain of Bryant's employees and to Bryant's supervisors in the presence of Bryant Grinder Corporation employees at Bryant Grinder Corporation's Springfield, Vermont, plant, (b) Respondents, by their agents, on various dates during the months of November and December 1968, and in January 1969, blocked the ingress and egress of employees to Bryant Grinder Corporation's Springfield, Vermont, plant, and (c) Respondents, by their agents, on December 26, 1968, followed automobiles of Bryant Grinder Corporation employees and did obstruct and block the egress of said employees and hindered their freedom of movement The totality of the conduct as described above completely persuades that the object of such conduct was to prevent Bryant Grinder Corporation employees from crossing the picket line established at the plant premises and to compel such employees to observe said picket line By such conduct as described above the Respondents have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Employer's operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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 and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices, it shall be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commision by the Respondents of similar and other unfair labor practices may be anticipated It shall therefore be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from restraining or coercing in any manner employees in their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I Bryant Grinder Corporation is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (U.E ), and its Local 218 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The foregoing labor organizations have jointly and severally violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act through the commission of acts of restraint and coercion which interfered with the exercise of rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 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 and the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Respondents, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Restraining or coercing the employees of Bryant Grinder Corporation by engaging in mass picketing at points of ingress to and egress from the plant premises of Bryant Grinder Corporation, by such mass picketing or otherwise barring or hindering ingress to or egress from such plant premises, by injuring or threatening injury to employees, supervisors, or other persons entering or leaving said premises, by damaging or threatening to damage automobiles or other property of employees, supervisors, or other persons entering or leaving said premises, by throwing rocks, ice, or other objects or substances at persons or vehicles entering or leaving said premises, or by following, harassing, or otherwise threatening employees at the plant premises or away from the plant premises in order to discourage their right to cross a picket line (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at their offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, 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) Sign, as aforesaid, and mail sufficient copies of the said attached notice to the Regional Director for Region I, for posting, the Charging Party (Bryant Grinder Corporation) being willing, at places where notices to employees or members, as the case may be, are customarily posted Such copies of the notice shall be furnished the Respondents by the said Regional Director (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 1'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE W KRS 291 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MFMBLRS Of UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS of AMERICA (U E.), AND ITS LOCAL 218 AND TO AIL EMPLOYEES OF BRYANT GRINDER CORPORATION Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner 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 WII L NOT restrain and coerce the employees of Bryant Grinder Corporation by engaging in mass picketing at points of ingress to and egress from the plant premises of Bryant Grinder Corporation, by such mass picketing or otherwise barring or hindering ingress to or egress from such plant premises, by injuring or threatening injury to employees, supervisors, or other persons entering or leaving said premises, by damaging or threatening to damage automobiles or other property of employees, supervisors, or other persons entering or leaving said premises, by throwing rocks, ice, or other objects or substances at persons or vehicles entering or leaving said premises, or by following, harassing, or otherwise threatening employees at the plant premises or away from the plant premises in order to discourage their right to cross a picket line. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act Dated By UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (U E), AND ITS LOCAL 218 (Labor Organization) (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 complaince with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor, John F Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 617-223-3300