Lithographers, Local 223

LITHOGRAPHERS , LOCAL 223 Lithographers and Photoengravers International Un- ion, AFL-CIO, CLC, and Memphis Local 223, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and Holiday Press, a Division of Holiday Inns, Inc. Case 26-CB-591 September 1, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On May 21, 1971, Trial Examiner Anne F. Schlez- inger issued her Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, recommendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein.' ORDER 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, as modified herein, and hereby orders that Respondents , Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, and Memphis Local 223, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Memphis, Tennessee, their officers , representa- tives, and agents, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as so modi- fied. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Examin- er's notice. I Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolution with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 11 Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guarantees to all employees the right to refrain from participation in union activities, including strikes. WE WILL NOT restrain and coerce the employees of Holiday Press, a Division of Holiday Inns, Inc., in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. More specifically: WE WILL NOT physically block access to the plant of cars in which nonstriking employees and other persons are seeking to enter the plant gates, or damage their cars, or assault the drivers while they are going through the plant gates. WE WILL NOT threaten to harm nonstrikers or their cars. WE WILL NOT chase cars or other vehicles of nonstriking employees, damage the cars or vehi- cles, or attempt to assault or assault the employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. LITHOGRAPHERS AND PHOTOENGRAVERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC (Labor Organization) Dated By Dated By (Representative) (Title) MEMPHIS LOCAL 223, LITHOGRAPHERS AND PHOTOENGRAVERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC (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, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephbne 901-534-3161. 193 NLRB No. 9 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ANNE F. SCHLEZINGER, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed on December 16, 1970, by Holiday Press, a Division of Holiday Inns, Inc., herein referred to as the Charging Party or the Employer, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 26 (Memphis, Tennessee), issued a complaint on January 29, 1971, alleging that Lithographers and Photoen- gravers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, and Mem- phis Local 223, Lithographers and Photoengravers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, herein referred to respec- tively as the Respondent International and the Respondent Local and jointly as the Respondents, engaged in certain acts and conduct violative of Section 8(bx1XA) of the National Labor Relations Act during a strike at the Employer's plant. In their answer, duly filed, the Respon- dents admit certain allegations of the complaint , but deny that they committed any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice duly served, a hearing was held before me at Memphis, Tennessee, on March 16, 17, and 18, 1971. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence . Subsequent to the hearing, the General Counsel, on April 23, and the Respondents, on April 28, 1971, filed briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER and I find that the Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that pickets, during a strike at the Employer's plant, physically blocked employees and other persons from entering the plant, and made threats and engaged in acts of violence directed against nonstrikers; that such conduct restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act; and that both Respondents are legally responsible for this unlawful conduct. The Respondents admit that some of the incidents in question occurred but deny that the evidence establishes that those responsible had any agency relationship with the Respondents.I A. Bargaining Relations On May 1, 1970, the Respondent Local, which represents employees of other employers in the area, was certified by the Regional Director for Region 26 as the collective- bargaining representative of a unit of the Employer's lithographic production employees.2 The Respondent Local was assisted in organizing these employees by Warnke, the coordinator of organizing for the Respondent International.3 Warnke, who lives in Austin, Texas, and whose office is in New York, assists local unions throughout the United States and Canada. His superior is Wallace, International vice president and director of organizing. Also involved in the events herein is Interna- tional Vice President Brandt. Warnke assists locals in their organizing activities including the formation of organizing and in-plant committees, seeks recognition on their behalf, files election petitions and charges, and represents the locals in Board proceedings. After the certification of a local, Warnke advises it on the formation of negotiating committees, assists in formulating proposals to be present- ed to the employer, and at the request of the local participates in the negotiation of the initial contract as the chief spokesman for the unit employees.4 Warnke as well as Wallace and other International representatives who were "on the scene at the time," as Warnke testified, became involved with the Respondent Local in organizing the Employer's employees in or about December 1969. Warnke attended organizing meetings arranged by the business agent of the Respondent Local, Rude, who is employed by another employer. After the in- plant organizing committee gave Warnke cards from a majority of the unit employees, he sought recognition from the Employer, and later filed a petition and participated in 2 There were about 54 employees in the unit and a total employee complement of approximately 300. J Warnke was called by the General Counsel as a witness under Rule 43(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . He was also called by the Respondents, and was the only witness they called. There were some contradictions and inconsistencies in Warnke's description of events when examined by the General Counsel and by the Respondents, apparently due to difficulty in recalling all the events about which he was questioned. 4 With regard to an organization such as the Respondent Local which has no full-time officers or staff, Warnke testified, another International representative is usually assigned to handle second-time contracts. Holiday Press is, and at all times material herein has been, a Division of Holiday Inns, Inc., with a plant and place of business located at Memphis , Tennessee, where it is engaged in commercial printing. During the past 12 months, the Employer, in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold and shipped products valued at more than $50,000 from its Memphis plant directly to points located outside the State of Tennessee . I find, as the complaint alleges and the Respondents in their answer admit, that the Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the Respondents' answer admits, i The complaint names as agents of the Respondents: Norman C. Warnke-Coordinator of Organizing, International Union; Theodore Brandt-International Vice President; R. J. Harcrow-Picket Line Captain; Renzil Barringer-Assistant Strike Captain; Charles Bennett-Bargaining Committee Member ; Donald Carroll-Bargaining Committee Member; Donald W. Haggett-Bargaining Committee Member ; Gary Conklin-Bargaining Committee Member ; George Thornton-Bargaining Committee Member; Allen Hill-Member; Bill Miller-Member; Troy Wiseman-Member; Joe Marr-Member; William J. Smith-Member. The Respondents' answer admits the correctness of all the above designations except that of Bill Miller. LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 223, the hearing on behalf of the Respondent Local. An election was held on about March 16 and the Respondent Local was certified on May 1, 1970. After the certification, Warnke was the chief spokesman for the unit employees in contract negotiations with the Employer. Vice President Brandt attended some of the later meetings with Warnke and was then, Warnke testified, "in charge" as he was Warnke's superior. Business Agent Rude attended only one session on September 1, made no proposals, and was the only Respondent Local member not employed by the Employer who attended any sessions. Members of a bargaining committee of five employees of the Employer were present at the negotiations, but Warnke testified that they, like the officers of the Respondent Local, did not participate in the negotiations as they had little or no experience in collective bargaining. The union contract proposal was prepared initially by this committee with the assistance of Warnke and Rude, and was checked by Warnke before he submitted it to the Employer because, he testified, the Respondent International has the right to reject a local's proposed contract. Warnke, as the chief spokesman, attended every negotiating session. He reported on the progress of the negotiations to the Respondent Internation- al and, on the basis of notes he took during the sessions, gave Rude a full description of what occurred after each session. About June 12, after the Employer had submitted its contract proposal, the bargaining committee suggested that the Respondent Local seek strike sanction. Minutes of a meeting headed "L.P.I.U. Regular Monthly Meeting June 14, 1970" comments on information from Warnke "that not much is happening at Holiday Press and that strike sanction is recommended," and on the vote in favor of strike sanction. About July 6, the Respondent Local obtained strike sanction from the Respondent Internation- al. About August 6, the bargaining committee asked Warnke to have an International vice president attend future negotiations, and Warnke so informed the Employ- er. About this same date, the Employer submitted a new proposal. At Warnke's request, the Employer released its lithographic employees, union members and nonmembers, to attend a meeting at which the Employer's contract proposal was discussed and rejected. At a later meeting of members only, they discussed the modifications they felt should be made in the Employer's proposal, and voted to strike if the Employer refused to amend its proposal. They also elected Harcrow as strike captain and Barringer as assistant strike captain. The bargaining committee at this time recommended striking or instituting an overtime ban but, at Warnke's recommendation, deferred such action. On August 12, Warnke was advised by International President Brown that Brandt had been assigned to assist in the negotiations, and Brandt came to Memphis later in August. Warnke testified that, as no strike could be called without the International president's approval, Brandt "had been empowered by Mr. Brown that, if the strike was necessary, that he had the final right to call it and, therefore, Mr. Brandt and myself both made recommenda- 13 tions to the local committee, and to the strikers, and so forth." The last contract negotiating session took place on September 2. On that date also the bargaining committee voted to institute an overtime ban which, Warnke testified, is "a form of a strike and, so, the strike was actually in progress at that time." He also testified, however, that Brandt did not give his approval of the decision to strike until September 5. At a meeting of the Respondent Local on that date, the members voted again to reject the Employer's proposal; to affirm the Bargaining Committee's authority, previously granted, to call a strike; and to authorize Warnke and Brandt to communicate with the Employer to determine whether it would change its position and, if it would not, to set the date for the strike. At this time Warnke and Brandt approved the decision to strike. Warnke testified that he had been asked to draw. up guidelines for strike conduct and did so with the assistance, he thought but was not sure, of Rude; that copies of.the guidelines were distributed at the September 5 meeting, and were distributed and available at strike headquarters at all times thereafter; that he had used in preparing the guidelines, alhong other materials, language from a Hoard decision; 5 and that he considered it was "bad use of the Board's decision" as he first realized at a Chancery Court proceeding. The guidelines contain the following provi- sions, couched in the terms used to describe the conduct found unlawful in that decision: CONDUCT POLICY OF THE L.P.I.U. FOR STRIKING MEMBERS OF LOCAL 223 MEMPHIS TENNESSEE AGAINST HOLIDAY PRESS (A DIVISION OF HOLIDAY INNS INC.) The Union will not condone the telling of anyone crossing the picket line that they might be pulled off the road and have their brains knocked because they crossed the picket line, nor will any other threats of violence be condoned or promulgated by the Union or it's [sic] members. The Union will not condone, through the pickets at Holiday Press, who are subject to the control of the Union, the shouting of threats and obscenities at persons who cross or attempt to cross the picket lines. The Union will not tell it's members to take down the license numbers of the cars that cross the picket line, nor will the Union tell it's members to follow the people who cross or attempt to cross the picket line. The Union will not tell it's members to call people who cross the picket line or attempt to cross the picket line at Holiday "Press at their homes or otherwise harass them for such actions. The Union will not tell any members of the Union or anyone who crosses the picket line or attempts to cross 5 The decision referred to is Local No. 235, Lithographers and Engravers International Union (Henry Wurst, Inc), 187 NLRB No. 63. 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the picket line, that we cannot control or restain [sic] the actions of our members. The Union will not have any of it's members picketing at Holiday Press throw nails in any of the driveways leading to the Company. If you have any questions contact your Strike Captain, the Assistant Strike Captain, a designated representa- tive of Memphis Local 223 or a designated representa- tive of the International Union. The Employer telephoned Warnke in New York about September 8 and asked that the overtime ban be lifted as the roof of the plant had fallen in and men were needed to clean up the debris. Warnke testified that after he checked with the acting chairman of the bargaining committee, who checked with the other members, he notified the Employer that same night or the following morning that the ban was lifted. Warnke also testified that employees were laid off thereafter rather than given extra cleanup work. The bargaining committee held no meetings during the period September 5 to 14 when Warnke and Brandt were not in town. Warnke testified that Brandt had instructed the committee no action should be taken until they returned on Monday, September 14. The committee called Warnke and Brandt on Sunday and said a strike would begin on Monday, September 14, but Warnke and Brandt persuaded the committee to give them more time to talk with the Employer. Both Warnke and Brandt came to Memphis on Monday and were told by the committee the overtime ban was being reinstituted. The committee wanted to go on strike that day but, at the recommendation of Warnke and Brandt, agreed that, if something was not worked out with the Employer or the Mediator, the strike would begin after the second shift on Wednesday, September 16. Warnke reported to the Committee on Tuesday that he had not been able to reach agreement with the Employer. B. Beginning of the Strike About 11 p.m. on September 16, Strike Captain Harcrow went into the plant, informed those on duty that the strike was in progress, and asked them to leave if they were going to support the pickets. When Warnke and Brandt arrived at the plant about 11:30, picketing had not yet begun but did soon afterwards. They advised the strikers what they should and should not do and, specifically, to picket the premises from the west gate to the east gate, and to keep on the move. These gates are about 25 feet wide and about 200 feet apart. Picket signs which had been prepared by the Respondent Local were brought to the plant by Harcrow and Warnke. There were also signs which pickets carried in or pasted on their cars. Warnke had two of these signs in his rented car. Harcrow, with Warnke's assistance, had prepared picketing schedules, and during the strike he 8 The parties stipulated that strike benefits were paid to all those named in the complaint as agents of the Respondents except Warnke, Brandt, and Bill Miller. r Additional strike funds were furnished by the Respondent Local Warnke assisted Rude to prepare a letter over Rude's signature soliciting money for a "distress fund," copies of which were sent by the Respondent maintained picketing rosters on the basis of which pickets received strike benefits. Detailed recommendations' as to the handling of such matters were made by Warnke and Brandt prior to and during the strike as Harcrow had not previously been involved in a strike. Warnke left the picket line about I a.m. He and Brandt returned about 6:30 a.m. While they left at intervals during the day, they were present Warnke testified a total of about 12 to 14 hours on the 17th. Warnke and Brandt stationed themselves at different gates but also at times carried signs and walked the picket line. Warnke testified that he believed Rude visited the picket line on the 17th before going to work in the morning and after he left work in the evening, but did not know how long he remained or whether any other officer of the Respondent Local was present that day. Strike headquarters were established in a rented portable building about a block from the struck plant. A city ordinance prohibited anyone remaining inside on a regular basis so those present sat on chairs or in their cars outside the building. At times the picket captain and the assistant picket captain were there coordinating the picket assign- ments. When neither of them was at the picket line, no individual was authorized in their stead to maintain order, that being, as Warnke testified, the duty of everyon6 at the picket line. , The parties stipulated at the hearing that the Respondent International "has provided aid and assistance to the striking employees of Holiday Press since September 16, 1970, and continuing to date." As the strike was sanctioned by the International, an emergency defense fund was established, pursuant to the provisions of the International constitution and bylaws, to which the International furnished a lump sum, based on approximate number of employees multiplied by 10 weeks, for disbursement locally. Each striking employee who performed his strike duty was paid $60 a week in strike benefits for 4 weeks and $70 a week thereafter.6 Strike benefits were paid out of a checking account entitled "Memphis Local 223 Emergency Fund LPIU." These checks require signature by two of three individuals: Warnke, Rude, or Ray Kopp, financial secretary of the Respondent Local. Checks are not sent to Warnke for signature when he is out of town. He signs such checks only when he is in Memphis. The parties also stipulated that the picket captain or his assistant prepares documents entitled "Roster of Employees Receiving Strike, Lockout or Sacrifice Benefits" which are signed by all those receiving such benefits, and that these reports are signed and "transmitted to the International on a weekly basis" by Warnke. Warnke also reports to the Respondent Interna- tional the balance of the funds on hand.? Warnke as well as other International representatives have on occasion bought coffee and other such items for strikers out of their per diem allowances, and Warnke, as he is authorized to do, has paid for gasoline with the credit card issued to him by the Respondent International when International to all its locals, with a list of companies owned by Holiday Inns, Inc , and its principal customers. As to one striker's emergency situation, Warnke arranged to have the Respondent International permit a loan to be made that was to be repaid when funds came in from the other locals. LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 223 15 he was riding in a striker's car. When some of the striking employees were brought to trial on criminal charges allegedly arising out of strike conduct, the Respondent International provided a legal defense fund.8 There was also an injunction proceeding involving strike conduct and, in October 1970, a contempt proceeding at which Warnke was a witness. The Respondents have conducted no investigation nor taken any disciplinary action against any of the accused individuals. Warnke testified that the strike was sanctioned by the Respondent International as a local union does not have the right to strike "without the final okay of the International President"; that the Respondent Internation- al was in charge of the operations at the Employer's plant "as far as the funding of the local monies and so forth"; that there has been no change since the strike began in the Respondent International's "area of responsibility, its participation and assistance"; that he has returned to the picket line, which is still in operation , since September 17 but could not recall the dates nor the frequency of these visits; and that the Respondent International has given the responsibility for the conduct of the strike to whatever representatives might be there at the time , including others than Warnke, but that he had the job of coordinating the strike whenever he was present. C. Nature of the Picketing on September 17 Androlewicz, the associate director of industrial relations of Holiday Inns, Inc., testified that a total of 34 employees failed to report for work on the night of September 16 and the morning and afternoon shifts on the 17th, that when he arrived at the plant about 11:30 on the night of September 169 there were 6 or 7 pickets at the west gate and about 4 at the east gate, that he and other Employer officials arriving at that time were delayed briefly by pickets standing in front of the vehicles as they were entering the gates , that he stood in front of the plant and observed what was going on for several hours, that the number of pickets increased until by about 6:30 a.m. there were approximately 15 at the west gate and 10 at the east gate , and that many employees who began arriving in their cars about 6 a.m. were blocked by the pickets massed at the gates . 10 Other witnesses gave similar estimates as to the numbers of pickets on the 17th, including Warnke who indicated there were for a time more pickets than could be supplied with the 30 picket signs available. The pickets walked from one gate to the other but, as several witnesses testified, there was also considerable "milling around" by groups of pickets at each gate. Warnke and Brandt spent much of their time stationed at the gates, but also walked from one gate to the other, as Warnke testified, in "an attempt to keep the people moving." Warnke admitted that there was considerable confusion and "an unreasonably large number" of pickets at the gates on the 17th, and explained this was because the first shift employees did not know when they arrived for work that a 8 Legal assistance was furnished to Strike Captain Harcrow, Bargaining Committee Member Carroll, and members Hill, Smith, Wiseman, and Mart. 9 His regular working hours were 8 a .m. to 5 p.m. 10 Androlewicz also testified, on cross-examination by the Respondents, strike had started. The bargaining committee, however, which had representatives from each shift, knew of the strike date in advance: In addition to the Employer's regular security personnel, guards emlAoyed by Tri-State Patrol were assigned to the plant for the duration of the strike. One, Fernstrom, arrived about 3 a.m. and another, Menendez, about 5 a.m:, on September 17.11 When the activity of the pickets at the plant gates created a traffic tieup on the heavily traveled street on which the plant is located, Androlewicz called the police about 7 a.m. and Asked that something be done to clear access to the plant. The police came and spoke to both Warnke and Brandt, together and separately. Warnke testified that there were from 10 to 22 policemen present at the picket line on September 17, and that he and Brandt both told the police they were trying to get the number of pickets reddced. Warnke also testified that he was 'trying to get the pickets down to a reasonable number'P and tro set up the picketing schedules previously established, but he admitted that the efforts to reduce the number of pickets met with little success that day.-The only indication ih the record as to the efforts of Warnke, Brandt, and Harcrow to reduce the number of pickets on the' 17th was that they "suggested" some individual pickets should leave and the prearranged schedules should be followed but, as Warnke testified, some acted on this suggestion but others did not. D. Unlawful Conduct by Pickets (a) The complaint alleges that the Respondents, bytheir officers, agents, members, and representatives, including Warnke, Brandt, Baggett, Man, Wiseman, Thbrnton, Conklin, and Bennett, on or about September 17, interfered with attempts by employees and other persons to enter the Employer's-premises by physically blocking the entrance of automobiles and by striking automobiles with picket sips. The record establishes, by credible and unreftitefl testimony, that the large numbers of pickets grouped-at the gates on September 17 interfered with the entrance and exit of vehicles=' driven by nonstriking employees and others. The pickets walked very slowly and very close together, and the line stopped repeatedly in front of vehicles trying to enter the gates, forcing them to stop, then moved forward and permitted the vehicles in the waiting line to move forward until the blocking action was repeated. The-pickets by this action delayed vehicles from -entering the gates for from a few seconds to a few minutes. Androlewicz testified that he observed many cars whose ingress through the gates was blocked by groups of piekets, including a car driven by Dorothy Mahoney, an employee, which was blocked as it attempted to enter the westgate, blocked again when it proceeded to the east.gatet and finally was parked on the lot of another company located beyond the east gate. Androlewicz• saw another car with a man and woman in it blocked as.it was entering the east gate. After the car got through and dropped the man, the car with the woman driving was blocked again as it that the number of pickets was considerably reduced by September 18 and further reduced after an injunction was issued on September 25. 11 At the time of the hearing, Fernstrom was working for another employer but Menendez was continuing his guard duty at the Employer's plant. 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD attempted to exit through the west gate . At this point, Androlewicz observed, Wiseman and another picket jumped on the car fenders and rode out of the gate in that fashion. A welding truck leaving after some work had been done for the Employer was blocked by the pickets for a couple of minutes, and one picket jumped on the fender as the vehicle made its exit. Pickets accompanied their activity with a great deal of shouting. They also did deliberate damage to cars entering the gates in addition to that caused by jumping on the cars. For example, Jeffreys, an assistant foreman , testified that he arrived at the west gate on September 17 about 7 a.m., and saw 15 or 20 pickets standing in a group and a number of cars trying to enter the gate, with pickets talking to the occupants of each car for a few minutes before moving out of the way of the car. When Jeffreys reached the group of pickets, some of them scratched his car by scraping it hard with the butt end of their picket signs . He identified Bennett and Thornton among the strikers who did this . Androlew- icz, who observed this incident, testified that Conklin was another of the strikers who engaged in this conduct, and who was also in the group of pickets who struck a motorcycle and its driver.12 Employee Sawyer, who came to work shortly before 7 a.m., testified that when he arrived the pickets were walking "just one behind the other . . . practically against each other"; that the pickets standing at the west entrance had three or four cars lined up waiting to enter as they permitted one car at a time to go through the line; that when he observed what was going on he directed his wife who brought him to work to drive home, and he entered the plant by walking not through but around the picket line; and that he saw one of the pickets , Thornton, strike a car radio antenna with his picket sign as he walked by.13 And Tri-State guards, Menendez and Fernstrom, testified about an incident on the morning of September 17 in which a group of pickets broke a radio antenna off one of the blocked cars and waved the antenna as the car proceeded into the gate. Androlewicz, who testified that he observed that both Warnke and Brandt were present during incidents of pickets blocking and striking cars, testified also that neither was seen to take any action to stop such incidents. It is clear, therefore, from the virtually undisputed evidence, and I find, that groups of pickets interfered with nonstriking employees and others trying to enter the plant on September 17; that International representatives Warnke and Brandt and Picket Captain Harcrow were present virtually all the time and Business Agent Rude was present part of the time on September 17; that there were, as Warnke conceded, an unreasonably large number of pickets on that day ; and that, although Warnke and Brandt assured the police that the number of pickets would be reduced, they took no effective steps that day to reduce the number of pickets or to stop those who were blocking and damaging cars at the plant gates, where Warnke and Brandt were stationed much of the time. (b) The complaint alleges that the Respondents , by their officers, agents, members, and representatives, including Conklin and Bennett, on or about September 17 stopped Supervisor Ussery's car at or near the picket line, and Bennett struck Ussery in the head with a picket sign. Ussery, the Employer's vice president of business forms and special products division, had participated in the contract negotiations as a technical adviser to the Employer. When he arrived at the west gate about 7 a.m. on September 17, a number of cars were backed up as a group of about 15 or 18 pickets milled around the driveway, each car taking a few minutes to get past the pickets . As Ussery's car was inching along, he lowered a car window to ask if the pickets would let him through . Bennett struck Ussery on the back of the head with the butt end of his picket sign through the lowered window . In a reflex action, Ussery hit the gas pedal and his car went through the pickets gathered about him.14 Conklin had climbed onto the hood of the car and rode on it about 10 feet before he jumped off.15 Ussery testified that after he got in the plant , he was given first aid for a cut on his head, and found that his car had been dented where Conklin climbed onto it. Ussery later moved his car from where he had left it to a parking area near the east gate . While there he observed that Warnke and Wiseman were among the pickets, and that someone in the group-Ussery thought it was Warnke but was not sure-called out that another car was coming and "Let's stop that car, too." Warnke, when questioned about this testimony , stated that "At no time did I ever, under any circumstances, advise anyone to block a car at any gate or at any time." He did not deny that Wiseman or someone else in the group made the remark that Ussery testified he heard. I find, on the basis of credible and uncontradicted testimony, that in addition to pickets blocking and damaging cars on September 17, a picket assaulted a supervisor driving one of the blocked cars. (c) The complaint alleges that the Respondents , by their officers, agents, members, and representatives, including Thornton, on or about September 17, at the H & N Lounge, threatened in the presence of employees to do bodily harm to employees and supervisors of the Employer because they crossed the picket line. Estes, an office employee, testified that he went to a nearby cafe for luncheon on September 17, that he saw a man there who looked familiar and asked if the man worked for the Employer, and that, upon receiving an affirmative reply, he walked over and sat next to the man. Estes asked if the man was a striker, and was told he was. They chatted about the strike and the operation of the presses in the plant. During this conversation, Estes testified, the man stated that Yeager and Bratton is and other "wheels" were going to be followed home every night and, if they were by themselves, were going to get hurt, but it would appear to be an accident. When Estes commented that he understood "you all worked J. R.'s car over the other day," referring to Jeffreys, the man responded that 12 Androlewicz also identified Thornton and S. A. Miller as pickets who and two Tn-State guards observed and testified about it. Were at the west gate when cars were being blocked. 15 Ussery named among the other pickets who were present Smith, IJ Sawyer also identified among the pickets he saw Conklin, Wiseman, Green, and Delaney. Marc, and Barringer, the assistant picket captain. 16 Yeager is president and Bratton is vice president of the Employer. 14 In addition to Ussery's testimony about this incident, Androlewicz LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 223 they had and that Jeffreys would "get more of it, too." Estes reported this conversation to his supervisor and later to management officials . Estes saw the man in question picketing at the east gate and pointed him out to his supervisor, who identified the picket as Thornton. I find, on the basis of Estes' credited and uncontradicted testimony, that a picket who was a member of the Bargaining Committee and who participated in blocking and damaging cars on September 17, also made threats of violence directed against nonstrikers . Pickets did thereafter follow and attack nonstrikers. (d) The complaint alleges that the Respondents, by their officers, agents, members, and representatives, including Hill, on or about September 17, at a stop light, struck an employee's car with a metal pipe after having chased the employee when he left the Employer's premises. Thweatt, a pressman who worked on the afternoon shift, left work on September 17 after 10 p.m. As he drove his car out through the west gate, he noticed there were a few pickets and some cars parked nearby. While he was driving home, Thweatt noticed three cars pull out of a side street and follow him . He was able to identify only one of the cars, a gray Buick that belonged to Hill. He was familiar with that car as he had seen it almost every day when he and Hill worked on the same shift prior to the strike. When he recognized that car, he took a circuitous route and drove almost full circle for some 3 or 4 miles at speeds up to 80 or 90 miles an hour. He succeeded in outrunning two of the cars, but Hill continued the pursuit. While Thweatt was stopped at a red light, Hill got out of the Buick carrying what appeared to be a pipe or a stick, and approached Thweatt's car. Thweatt took off as Hill swung the object he was carrying, hitting Thweatt's car and causing a dent in it. I find, on the basis of Thweatt's credible and unrefuted testimony, that Hill and other pickets pursued Thweatt's car when he left work and, when his car stopped at a traffic sign, struck and dented the car. (e) The complaint alleges that the Respondents , by their officers, agents, members, and representatives, including Baggett, on or about September 17, attempted to prevent employees from entering the Employer's plant by placing roofing nails in the entrances to the plant. Menendez, a Tri-State guard, testified that he saw, when he came to the plant about 9 a.m. on September 19, a striker moving roofing nails on the drive with his foot so they would stand with the point raised ; that he asked Beeves, an Employer security guard, who the striker was ; that Beeves identified him as Baggett and noted the incident in a log; that Menendez did not see Baggett place the nails on the drive; and that when Menendez walked out a about an hour later most of the nails were gone but some were still there. 17 Beeves, who supervised the security personnel, including the Tri-State guards, during the strike, main- tained a log covering picket activities that he observed or that were reported to him by other guards. He testified that Menendez reported to him, about 9 a .m. on September 19, that Menendez saw some pickets throw tacks on the driveway and that the tacks had been cleaned up for the traffic that was coming in, that Menendez showed him some of the tacks that Menendez had picked up, that he got 17 Baggett's name from Menendez, and that he promptly noted the muter in the log. The log notes in Beeves' hand- printing, after the date and time, "DON BAGGETT, A PICKET AT THE WEST GATE ENTRANCE, WAS OBSERVED BY BOB MENENDEZ, A TRI-STATE OFFICER, THROWING LARGE TACKS IN DRIVE- WAY. TACKS WERE PICKED UP BY TRI-STATE GUARDS." I find that the evidence does not establish this allegation of the complaint . Menendez testified that he saw a striker on September 19 moving nails which were on the drive with his foot so they would stand point upright, and that Beeves identified the striker as Baggett. Beeves testified that Menendez gave him Baggett's name, and told him he saw Baggett throw tacks on the driveway-which Menendez denied in his testimony that he saw; and that the Tri-State guards had picked up the tacks-which Menendez, a Tri- State guard, did not mention doing . The comment Beeves placed in -the log, that Menendez observed Baggett "throwing large tacks in driveway," is likewise contrary to what Menendez testified he had seen. (f) The complaint alleges that the Respondents , by their officers, agents, members, and representatives, including Bill Miller, attempted to prevent employees from entering the Employer's plant on or about September 24 by physically blocking the entrance to the plant and, while doing so, telling an employee to go home. William Miller, a shipping employee who is not in the unit here involved, rode a motorcycle to work . He testified that about 2 days after the strike began he was blocked by pickets at the west gate when he arrived at work ; that one of the pickets who was about 5'9" tall, "pretty fat," weighed about 240 pounds, and had the name "Miller" on his shirt, stood directly in front of his motorcycle, told him to go home, and, when he refused, pointed out that he was blocked and could not get in ; and that he entered the plant a few minutes later through another gate. Warnke testified that the only unit member named Miller was S. A. Miller, whose weight was about 170 pounds. Some nonunit individuals picketed at times but there is no evidence that any of them met the description given by William Miller. I shall make no finding of a violation of the Act based on this alleged blocking incident in view of the confused state of the record in this matter and of the fact that the order herein will in any event cover blocking activity, (g) The complaint alleges that the Respondents , by their officers, agents, members, and representatives, whose identity is unknown, on or about October 15 left the picket line and followed an employee's vehicle several blocks from the plant, and caused an employee to stop his vehicle, whereupon this employee was physically attacked by occupants of the car that forced him off the road. William Miller testified that one evening in about the second week of October, he went to an ice skating rink about a half-mile from the plant, and left there to go home shortly before 10 p.m. He testified further that as he passed the Employer's plant on his motorcycle, he saw two pickets, whom he did not know, put aside their picket signs and get in a car and follow him, When he ran through traffic lights 17 Repairs had recently been made on the plant roof. 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and stop signs, they did also, at times passing his motorcycle and at times behind it. Miller stopped a few blocks from his house in order not to be followed there. He got off his motorcycle and asked the men in the car why they were following him. One of them replied they were going to whip him. Both men got out of the car and attempted to attack him but Miller, who has had considerable training in karate, testified that he succeeded in striking both of them without being struck himself, whereupon one of the men suggested they get out of there and they did. Miller testified they were driving a black and white Chevrolet with strike signs in the back window. I find that this incident occurred as described by Miller; that the two men, although not identified by name, were unquestionably pickets; that while the only blows were struck by Miller, the two pickets who interrupted their picketing to pursue Miller had threatened and attempted to assault him; and that this conduct by pickets was of the same nature as other following and attacking incidents against nonstrikers which occurred about the same time, in one of which Harcrow was present, as discussed below. (h) The complaint alleges that the Respondents, by their officers, agents, members, and representatives , including Marr and Wiseman, on or about October 12, at a street intersection, threw a brick at an employee's car; the employee was then chased to a liquor store on another street, where Man threatened the employee by brandishing a pistol and inviting him to fight; and Marr and Wiseman then broke out the rear window of the employee's car. Roosevelt Reese, a nonstriking press operator, worked generally on the 7 to 3:30 shift, but worked longer hours on October 12 and left about 7 p.m. He noticed that Wiseman's car was in the driveway of a plant located next to that of the Employer, that Wiseman, Smith, and Marr were there, and that as he got in his car they got into Wiseman's car. After Reese drove a short distance, he saw Wiseman turn and begin trailing his car, at times, as Reese described it, "about bumper to bumper." At one point when Reese stopped at a 4-way sign, Wiseman's car pulled alongside and Man threw a rock that landed on the trunk of Reese's car. When Reese stopped at a liquor store, Man got out of the car and asked, "Roosevelt, do you want us?" After Reese answered "No," Marr pulled out a pistol and aimed it in Reese's direction. As Reese walked around the corner of the store, he heard three shots fired. He did not see the shots fired and admitted he did not know whether bullets or blanks were fired. Reese asked to use the telephone in the store to call the police but was refused permission. He drove away but then went back to the store, and was given permission to call the police. As he walked to the telephone, he looked out and saw that the rear window of his car had been broken and the windshield cracked. He did not see who did this. When he left the store, the Wiseman car and its occupants were not there. I find, on the basis of Reese's credited and unrefuted testimony, that on October 12 a number of pickets in striker Wiseman's car followed his car as he left work; that when he stopped at a traffic sign, one of the pickets threw a rock that dented his car; and that when he stopped, and replied 18 See /AM (General Electric Company), 189 NLRB No. 10, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, etc. (Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville), 184 NLRB No. 10. negatively to the pickets' question whether he wanted them, one of them displayed a gun and aimed it at him. As geese went around the building three shots were fired. Reese later found that he rear window and windshield of his car had been damaged. While Reese admitted candidly he did not see the shots fired and did not see the pickets damage his car, I infer- and find, from all the relevant circumstances, that it was the pickets who fired the shots he heard immediately after they aimed a gun at him, and who damaged his car.18 (i) The complaint alleges that the Respondents, by.their officers, agents, members, and representatives, including Harcrow, Carroll, Hill, and Smith, on or about October 14, on a street several blocks from the plant premises, caused an employee to stop his car, whereupon the named individuals and others inflicted bodily harm upon employ- ees occupying the car and damaged the employee's car, Joe Lyons, whose home was in Johnson City, more than 500 miles from Memphis, came to work for the Employer about 2 or:3 weeks after the strike began. He.had returned to Johnson City about a month before the hearing and was employed there by a different employer at the time of the hearing. Lyons had worked for the Employer as a roll cleaner on, the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift. He left work on October 14.with Banks, an employee, who was driving,a car that belonged to another employee. Lyons and Banks returned to the plant in this car about I1 p.m. to give a ride home to Godsey and Bledsoe, who were working on the 3 to 11 p.m. shift. As they drove in through the west gates they saw next to the entrance three pickets sitting in a gray Buick which bore strike signs. As they got out of the car on the parking loll two of the strikers, Carroll and Hill, got out of the Buick and one of them shouted, "Banks, -you are-dead tonight." About 15 minutes later, Lyons, Banks, Godseys and Bledsoe left by the east gate. The Buick, which Lyons testified was driven by Hill, made a U-turn and proceeded to follow them. As they passed the Holiday Inn within about a block from the plant, a white Ford pulled out with. several men in it and followed also. When they reached strike headquarters they noticed a red and black car there with its lights on and motor running, which joined the procession:19 At this point Godsey said, and the others believed, that there was going to be trouble, so they..drove through a traffic "caution" light and some red lights, but the three gars following them drove through these lights also. Finally, one of the cars pulled alongside and swerved toward their car, forcing Banks to turn onto a parking lot. The other cars pulled in right behind them. Carroll jumped out of the red and black car with a tire tool with which, Lyons and Bledsoe both testified, he smashed the windshield, of the car Banks was driving. Banks was trying to move the car but the engine kept stalling, Meanwhile about 10 or 12 men got out of the pursuing cars and surrounded the stalled car. They shattered the car windows as well as the windshield, and damaged the car interior and exterior with their tire tools. Lyons testified that "there was glass flying everywhere from the tire tools." When Lyons and the others tried to get out of the car, someone yelled 19 Lyons testified that he had seen all' three of these cars at the picket line prior to and since the night in question. LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 223 19 "Don't let them s.o.b.s out." Lyons was struck by both Hill and Smith with tire tools through the window next to which Lyons was seated, and the others in the car were struck with these tools also. Bledsoe testified that, when he was trying to get out of the car, he was struck by Carroll through the window and shoved back in the car, and also that someone threw a tire tool through the broken rear window and hit him in the back and, when he turned around, he saw Harcrow standing there, but he did not see Harcrow throw the tire tool or take any other action. Finally someone yelled "Cops" and the attackers got in their cars and left. Lyons lost consciousness, and woke up in a hospital with stitches being taken in his hand, arm, and both legs. At the time of the hearing Lyons still had a scar and two stiff fingers on his left hand from the tire tool blows. Bledsoe testified that during this incident he saw Carroll, Harcrow, Smith, and Hill among the attackers. Lyons in his testimony originally named only Carroll, Hill, and Smith, but, when shown his pretrial affidavit, testified that he recalled that Harcrow was present also, that Harcrow was the driver of the red and black car, that he saw Harcrow get out of that car just before the windshield was shattered by Carroll, but that he did not observe Harcrow participating in the attack. On the day after this incident, Lyons and Bledsoe were shown, by police in the Employer's office, pictures of all the male employees on identification cards, from which, both testified, they recognized Carroll, Smith, and Harcrow, and Lyons recognized Hill's picture when he saw it at the police station. In his testimony in other proceedings involving this incident, Lyons stated that Smith was driving the red car, and he did not identify Harcrow as one of the men present. He testified, in explanation of the failure to mention Harcrow in his testimony in the Chancery Court, that "I had just gotten bursted in the head with a tire tool about three nights before." He also failed to name Harcrow in a police court proceeding, but at the instant hearing maintained persist- ently that he saw Harcrow get out of the car at the parking lot. Randall Jones, a young man not employed by the Employer or connected in any way with the strike, was driving home on the night of October 14 with a friend and was waiting for a traffic light when they noticed, as Jones testified, about 12 men "armed with tire tools" beating on a car and its occupants in a parking lot. Jones testified further that he and his companion were watching this when "all of a sudden they broke up and ran to their cars" and took off in different directions; that one car, the Buick, proceeded in the direction Jones' car was facing so Jones followed it until he was able to get the license number; and that he then returned to where the beating occurred and reported the number to the police who were there. A certificate placed in evidence by the General Counsel shows a Buick car with that number registered to Hill. Lyons, Bledsoe, and Jones all identified the Buick which was driven by Hill and had two strike signs on the back.20 I find that Hill in his Buick and a number of pickets, including Picket Captain Harcrow, in two other cars, followed a car leaving the plant on the night of October 14 with 4 nonstriking employees in it, forced it to turn onto a parking lot, and there the pickets, about 12 in all, armed with tire tools, attacked the four employees, causing some injuries to all and serious injuries to one of them, and did extensive damage to the car. The Respondents argue that Harcrow was not adequately identified as one of those present, particularly as Lyons failed to name Harcrow in other proceedings in which this incident was in issue. Lyons maintained firmly in his testimony, after he was shown his pretrial affidavit, that Harcrow was one of the pickets he saw during the attack at the parking lot. Bledsoe also testified that Harcrow was present. Harcrow was not called as a witness, nor were any of the other pickets named as participants in this attack.21 I found Lyons, Bledsoe, and Jones candid and reliable witnesses, and credit their testimony as to what occurred and as to those involved, including the identification of Harcrow by Lyons and Bledsoe. Concluding Findings I have found above that most of the acts and conduct alleged in the complaint to be violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act did occur substantially as testified to by witnesses for the General Counsel . Section 8(b)(1)(A) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a 'labor organization or its agents to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to refrain from engaging in a strike.22 The Board recently reaffirmed its holding that "Section 8(b)(1)(A) outlaws, without qualification, all union violence against employees which has the effect of interfering with their statutory right to refrain from assisting labor organizations or engaging in concerted activities." 23 The principal issue raised by the Respondents, who do not dispute the occurrence of a number of the incidents in question, is the responsibility of the Respon- dents, separately or jointly, for the conduct of the pickets and strikers who, the Respondents contend, have not been shown in the record to have any agency relationship with either Respondent. The Board has held, under the law and the applicable decisions, that a union's responsibility for conduct such as that found herein is judged in accordance with the "ordinary law of agency," and that a union is liable for the acts of an agent within the scope of his general authority as agent even though the union has not specifically authorized or subsequently ratified, or indeed may have forbidden, the act in question.24 The Board also holds that "authorization 20 One of the proceedings that arose out of these incidents, in which Jones also testified, was entitled, as brought out in a question addressed to Jones by counsel for the Respondents , "The City of Memphis, Plaintiff, Versus William Smith , L. D. Jones, R J Harcrow, A. 0 Hill and D. S. Carroll." 21 See General Electric Company, supra (TXD). 22 Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, supra, IL WU (Sunset Line and Twine Co.), 79 NLRB 1487. 23 Teamsters and Chauffeurs, etc (Penntruck Co, Inc), 189 NLRB No. 83. 24 Local No 235, Lithographers and Engravers International Union (Henry Wurst, Inc.), 187 NLRB No. 63; Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, supra. Sec 2(13) of the Act provides: In determining whether any person is acting as an "agent" of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his (Continued) 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or ratification may be manifested by conduct, sometimes even passive acquiescence as well as by words ." 25 The Respondents in their brief acknowledge that "the ordinary rules of agency govern proceedings of this kind." The brief also comments on the Supreme Court's holding in United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, that there is no union liability unless clear proof is shown of actual participation in or actual authorization or ratification of the acts in question by union agents after actual knowledge thereof. The Board, however, has held that that case, which "involved an action for damages under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, and as a common law tort under State law," is inapplicable to Board cases as Board law provides less stringent standards for determining "a union's responsibility for the acts of its members and officers." 26 In the light of the foregoing principles, it is clear, and I find, that the Respondent Local, the certified representative that called and conducted the strike, is responsible for the acts of the strikers. It is well established Board law that in authorized strikes unions are normally responsible for the acts of authorized pickets.27 The Board has held that "Threats and the employment of force on a picket line, even though forbidden, are reasonably to be expected, and so `within the scope of employment of pickets for which the labor organization is responsible.' "28 As I have found above, on September 17, the first day of the strike, large groups of pickets blocked ingress to the Employer's plant of the cars of nonstriking employees and others, in a number of instances damaging the blocked cars, and in one instance physically assaulting a supervisor who was driving one of the blocked cars. This conduct occurred while the picket captain was present all day and the business agent of the Respondent Local was present part of the time. It is apparent from the record that they took no steps to prevent this conduct, nor disciplined in any way the pickets who engaged in such activities. It is clearly established by the Board and the courts that such picketing conduct, "interfering with a basic right guaranteed by statute-the right of non-striking employees to continue working," constitutes conduct violative of section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I conclude and find that the Respondent Local is legally responsible for this unlawful conduct.29 As set forth above, both Warnke and Brandt were present when picketing began on the night of the 16th and for about 12 to 14 hours on the 17th, directing and participating in the picketing. Prior to that, the record shows, Warnke, aided at times by Brandt and other representatives of the Respon- dent International, had guided the Respondent Local in organizing the Employer's unit employees, obtaining a acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized dir subsequently ratified shall not be controlling. 25 Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, supra, Sunset Line and Twine Co., supra. 28 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc (All-American Stamp and Premium Corp), 159 NLRB 1313 27 Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, supra, Local 62 etc (Deacon Truck Lines, Inc.), 146 NLRB 498, 503 28 Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, supra (TXD); United Furniture Workers (Colonial Hardwood Flooring Co.), 84 N LRB 563, 587 29 N L R B v Community Motor Bus Company, Inc, 439 F.2d 965 (C A 4); General Electric Company, supra, Local 201, IUE (General Electric Board certification, carrying on contract negotiations with the Employer as the chief spokesman for the unit employees, advising when to strike and how to carry on the strike, and directing the strike activity. Warnke prepared the strike guidelines setting forth the "Policy of the L.P.I.U. for Striking Members of Local 223" in the strike against the Employer, and pointing out that the pickets "are subject to the control of the Union," and that they should refer any questions to the strike captain, the assistant strike captain, or a designated representative of the Respondent Local or of the Respondent International. The strike could not be called without the approval of the Respondent Internation- al, which also controlled the timing of the strike. The International also set up the strike benefit fund and the legal defense fund . Warnke maintained throughout his testimony, and the Respondents argue in their brief, that Warnke's activity was merely to give assistance to the Respondent Local at its request, and that it was making the final decisions. Warnke admitted, however, that the officers of the Respondent Local, as well as the members of the bargaining committee, had little or no experience in negotiating contracts or in conducting strikes , and were guided in these activities by the International representa- tives. When Warnke and Brandt were out of town for more than a week shortly before the strike began, the bargaining committee held no meetings as Brandt had instructed the committee to take no action until they returned. In my opinion, therefore, the record shows, and I find, that the Respondent International was substantially in control of the events leading up to the strike, sanctioned the strike, determined the date of the strike, financed the strike benefit and legal defense funds, directed the conduct of the strike, participated in the strike, and, although both Warnke and Brandt were present about 12 to 14 hours on September 17, took no reasonably effective action to stop the conduct on that day found above to be unlawful. Accordingly, I find, upon the entire record , that there was, in calling and directing the strike, a close interrelationship between the Respondents, and that the strike was therefore a "joint venture"30 by both Respondents. I also find that the Respondent International, by the inaction of its agents, Warnke and Brandt, when pickets engaged in misconduct on the picket line in their presence, "in effect adopted and ratified the conduct of the pickets."31 I conclude and find, accordingly, that the Respondent International is jointly responsible with the Respondent Local for the gate blocking and violence by the pickets on September 17, and, therefore, that both Respondents by such conduct inter- fered with the employees' Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.32 I have also found above that striker Thornton told a Company), 188 NLRB No. 125; Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, supra; IA M (General Electric Company, Circuit Protective Devices Dept.), 183 NLRB No. 126; Sunset Line and Twine Co., supra. 30 United Rubber etc. and Local 796 (Tennessee Wheel and Rubber Co.), 166 NLRB 165. 31 General Electric Company, Circuit Protective Devices Dept., supra; Teamsters Local 783 etc (Coca-Cola Bottling Co.), 160 NLRB 1776. 32 N L.R B v District 12, United Mine Workers of America and United Mine Workers of America, 76 LRRM (C.A. 7)2828,• N L.R.B. v. International Longshoremen 's etc., 378 F.2d 125 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 389 U.S. 846; International Union of District 30, etc., and its Local 15440 (Dow Chemical Co.), 187 NLRB No. 130; United Mine Workers of American and UMW LITHOGRAPHERS , LOCAL 223 nonstriking employee that nonstrikers would be followed and the occupants attacked, and that cars would continue to be damaged; and that pickets did thereafter pursue nonstrikers, threatening, attempting to assault, and assault- ing the nonstrikers and damaging their cars. The men who engaged in this violence included authorized pickets, bargaining committee members, and pickets who had engaged in the September 17 blocking and violence at the plant gates. Some of the pursuing cars, bearing picket signs, were parked at or near, and took up the pursuit from, the picket line or the strike headquarters. Picket Captain Harcrow was present at the most violent of these incidents, when three cars containing about 12 pickets followed a car in which 4 employees were leaving the plant, and attacked the employees and damaged the car with tire tools. Harcrow's presence during this incident indicated that chasing and attacking nonstriking employees constituted part of the picket line strategy for discouraging such employees from going to work 33 The Respondents did not call as witnesses any of the pickets charged with such conduct, and admitted that none of the strikers charged in other proceedings with strike violence or misconduct were ever investigated or disciplined by the Respondents34 I find, upon the entire record, that Thornton's threats and these incidents of strikers threatening, pursuing, attempting to assault, and assaulting nonstriking employees constitute further restraint and coercion of employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Warnke admitted that the role of the Respondent International has not changed since the strike began. Although he could not recall the dates nor the frequency of his visits to the picket line since September 17, he apparently has continued to submit reports to the Respondent International as to the strike benefit payments .,on a weekly basis." The Respondent International has given responsibility for the conduct of the strike to whichever representatives might be present at the time, but Warnke has had the job of "coordinating" the strike whenever he was present . Warnke knew of the charges of strike misconduct as a result of the court proceedings in which he testified, but he made no investigation and took no action based on these charges. I find, upon the entire record, that the conduct of the strike has continued to be a common endeavor by both Respondents, and that the Respondents are jointly liable for these further violations of Section 8(b)(1)(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 operations of the Employer set forth in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and District #6 (Weirton Construction Co.), 174 NLRB No. 52; United Mine Workers of America and UMW District 2 (Solar Fuel Co.), 170 NLRB No. 178; Tennessee Wheel and Rubber Co, supra, Local 888 etc (Miami Plating Co.), 144 NLRB 897. The Respondents' brief cites cases such as United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc. v. N L R.B., 286 F.2d 533 (C.A.D C.), and N.L.R.B v. Local 1016, United Brd. of Carpenters, 273 F 2d 686 (C A. 2), in which courts have held that internationals were not jointly liable with the locals for certain unlawful conduct . Those cases are clearly distinguishable, however, as the internationals therein did not control and participate in the 21 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 serious and extensive unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondents cease and desist therefrom and from in any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies 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 1. Holiday Press, a Division of Holiday Inns, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By physically blocking access to the Employer's plant of cars in which nonstriking employees and other persons were seeking to enter the plant gates, by damaging blocked cars and assaulting a driver of one of the blocked cars, by threatening to harm nonstrikers and their cars, and by chasing cars or other vehicles of nonstriking employees, damaging the cars and attempting to assault or assaulting the employees, the Respondents have restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 35 ORDER The Respondents, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, and Memphis Local 223, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, their officers, representatives, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing employees of Holiday Press, a Division of Holiday Inns, Inc., by physically blocking access to the plant of cars in which nonstriking employees and other persons are seeking to enter the plant gates; by damaging blocked cars or assaulting drivers of blocked cars; by threatening to harm unlawful conduct as the Respondent International did in the present case. 33 General Electric Company, Circuit Protective Devices Dept., supra. 34 Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, supra 35 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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. 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nonstrikers and their cars; by chasing cars or other vehicles of nonstriking employees, damaging the cars or vehicles, or attempting to assault or assaulting the employees; or by in any other manner restraining or coercing said employees in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places in the business offices, meeting halls, and other places where they customarily post notices to their members, signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 36 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed by authorized representatives of the Respondents, shall be posted 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 and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 26 for posting by Holiday Press, a Division of Holiday Inns, Inc., if willing, in all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith 37 IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act not specifically found herein. 36 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a 37 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing , within 20 days "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " comply herewith."