Service Employees Union

SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION Service Employees International Union, Local No. 50, AFL-CIO and Our Lady of Perpetual Help Nursing Home, Inc. Cases 14-CB-2547 and 14-CB-2615 January 4, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On August 21, 1973, Administrative Law Judge David S. Davidson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.' 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Service Employees International Union, Local No. 50, AFL-CIO, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall take the action set forth in said recom- mended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for the Administrative Law Judge's notice. i The notice to members is modified to conform to the Order. For the reasons expressed in his dissenting opinion in Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Loc 901, Teamsters (Lock Joint Pipe & Co of Puerto Rico), 202 NLRB No 43, Chairman Miller would expand the remedial order to include an award of backpay to Ensley, Richardson, and Trice, nonstriking employees who were compelled to cease working as a consequence of the Respondent's unlawful and coercive activities. Accord- ingly, although agreeing with his colleagues in all other respects, Chairman Miller dissents from their failure to fully remedy the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent by imposing backpay liability upon it for these three employees. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a'trial at which all parties had the opportuni- ty to present their evidence, it has been found that we 117 violated the law by committing unfair labor practices and we have been ordered to post this notice and to keep the promises that we make in it. WE WILL NOT threaten any employees of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Nursing Home, Inc., or any other employer doing business with it, with physical harm or any other reprisals, hit their cars with any object, physically block or harass them, or restrain or coerce them in any like or related manner because of their desire to cross a picket line at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Nursing Home, Inc., or because they seek to exercise their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 50, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (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 compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Administrative Law Judge: On November 6, 1972, the charge in Case 14-CB-2547 was filed. On December 29, 1972, Respondent and the Acting Regional Director entered into an informal settlement agreement disposing of the charge. However, on March 5, 1973, Respondent gave notice that it would not comply with the settlement agreement. On March 12, 1973, the settlement agreement was vacated and set aside and a complaint issued alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by various acts of misconduct during October and November 1972, in conjunction with picket- ing at a nursing home operated by the Charging Party. Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. A hearing on this complaint opened on April 10, 1973. At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, Respondent and the General Counsel again entered into an informal settlement agreement, over the objection of the Charging Party. After argument, the hearing was continued indefinitely pending compliance with the new settlement agreement. On April 23, 1973, the charge in Case 14-CB-2615 was filed, and on May 16, 1973, the complaint issued in that 208 NLRB No. 10 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD case alleging that Respondent had further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by further acts of misconduct in January, February, and April 1973, in conjunction with picketing at the nursing home. On May 23, 1973, the General Counsel moved to set aside the settlement agreement in Case 14-CB-2547, to consolidate the two cases, and set them for further hearing. On June 11, 1973, that motion was granted over Respondent's objection.' Respondent in the mean- time filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices in Case 14-CB-2615. A further hearing was held on the consolidated com- plaints on July 9 and 11, 1973. At the conclusion of the hearing oral argument was waived. A brief has been received from the General Counsel. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Charging Party, Our Lady of Perpetual Help Nursing Home, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation which operates a nursing home in St. Louis, Missouri. During the calendar year 1971, a representative period, the Employer derived gross revenues in excess of $100,000 from the operation of its nursing home and purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000 which were delivered to it directly from points outside Missouri. I find that the Charging Party is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent's business representative, Ann Spears, was its principal representative responsible for the strike. Spears visited the picket line regularly and stayed for from one to several hours at a time. Other staff representatives of Respondent also occasionally visited the picket line. Three picket captains were appointed to be in charge of the picketing in the absence of other representatives of Respondent. They were John Williams, Sadie Caldwell, and Jo Ann Gathing. Each was responsible for an 8-hour period each day, and picketing was maintained on a 24- hour basis. Four pickets were assigned to each shift, with two assigned to picket and two as relief. The relief pickets were to remain in a car or a nearby house when not picketing.2 Those who were scheduled to picket were paid strike benefits by Respondent. At all times material there were police present at the picket line. At the outset of the picketing on the instruction of Respondent's President John Sorbie, Spears orally instruct- ed the pickets that the picketing was to be peaceful and nonviolent, that the pickets could talk to persons seeking to enter the nursing home, that they could not block their entrance, and that there were to be no disturbances. According to Spears she repeated these instructions almost daily after the picketing started.3 In early January 1973, after the first settlement agreement in Case 14-CB-2547 was executed, Respon- dent's counsel prepared written instructions which were read to the pickets by Spears. These instructions insofar as material herein provided that pickets were not to block exits or entrances, to converse with anyone, to record license numbers, or to take any photographs. Affirmative- ly, pickets were advised to refer all questions to Respon- dent's business agents and to conduct themselves peaceful- ly and politely at all times. The principal issues raised at the hearing are whether Respondent's business representatives themselves were responsible for or condoned any misconduct and whether Respondent is responsible for the conduct of others at and away from the picket line. A. Background In July or August 1972, Respondent furnished employees of the nursing home with authorization cards to sign, and in late August it filed a petition seeking a representation election. A consent-election agreement was entered and an election was scheduled for September 26, 1972. However, on September 25 the Regional Director postponed the election. On or about October 4 a meeting of the employees was held at which they voted to strike against the nursing home. Respondent did not authorize a strike at that time, but when the employees again met on October 9 and again voted to strike, Respondent authorized a strike to begin on October 11, 1972. A picket line was instituted and maintained at the nursing home until April 23, 1973, when the strike ended. i The order granting the motion provided that if the evidence failed to sustain the allegations of the second complaint, the setting aside of the settlement agreement would be subject to reconsideration As I find merit in most of the allegations of the second complaint, there is no occasion to consider reinstating the settlement agreement, and the merits of the allegations of both complaints are considered below B. The Alleged Misconduct 1. On or about October 18, Lee Matthey, president of National Laundry Company, arranged to meet one of his drivers, Willie Garner, at the nursing home to assist him in delivering laundry to the home. Matthey joined Garner in the truck which proceeded up an alley to the delivery entrance at the rear of the nursing home. Respondent's Representative Spears and several others were standing there. While Matthey was making the delivery, Spears said to him, "You can't make a delivery here. He's going to get into trouble," referring to Garner who was standing next to Matthey. Matthey replied that they were going to make the delivery. Another woman who was standing near Spears pointed to Garner and said, "We're going to get you."4 Spears' statement to Matthey in the presence of Garner 2 The evidence indicates, however, that at most times material there were more than two persons picketing at a time 3 Minnie Lee Bell testified that on one occasion Spears told the pickets that if they laid down in front of a truck or car, the nursing home could get an injunction She told them to keep it cool and not to threaten people 4 Matthey so testified Garner was not called as a witness, but James SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION clearly conveyed that Garner would be in trouble if the linen delivery was made. While Spears was not explicit as to the kind of trouble Garner might anticipate, the statement of the unidentified woman standing in the group at the gate was a commonly understood threat of direct physical reprisal, which in the absence of clarification or disavowal by Spears gave similar coloration to Spears' threat. Spears was admittedly an agent of Respondent. Her conduct and that of the unidentified woman standing with the group at the gate are properly attributed to Respon- dent.-5 I find that by this conduct, Respondent threatened Garner with reprisal and violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 2. A few days later Matthey again joined his driver to make a delivery to the nursing home. A man subsequently identified by Matthey as Respondent' s Business Repre- sentative Walter Murphy stood near the entrance while the delivery was made and seemed to be taking notes. Matthey went to Murphy, identified himself, and said that he was the one who made the delivery and crossed the picket line. Murphy replied, "I don't care about you, he's the man we're after," referring to the driver who was standing next to Matthey. There was a lot of shouting and profanity from those assembled at the gate. Some one said that if the driver didn't keep the truck out of there, they were liable to wreck it and that they would take care of him.6 Murphy, like Spears, was an admitted agent of Respon- dent. Within the hearing of the driver Murphy threatened that the driver was the man they were after. As in the previous incident the vague statement by Murphy was followed by more explicit threats of reprisal, which Murphy did not disavow, against the driver by those assemb' led at the gate. I find that Murphy's statements and those directed at the driver by others in Murphy's presence are attributable to Respondent and violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 3. About 2 or 3 weeks after the strike started, in response to questions by some of the pickets, Spears told them they could copy down license numbers, telephone numbers, and local union numbers from trucks making deliveries to the nursing home.? Picket Minnie Bell took down license numbers of the National Linen and Top Mist Foods trucks and turned them over to union representa- tives. She made no attempt to conceal this from drivers making deliveries. Other pickets took down numbers also. According to Spears, the information was recorded so that Respondent could call the companies and ask them to honor the picket line. In the light of Spears' testimony, it is clear that Respondent authorized pickets to record license numbers and other information pertaining to trucks making deliver- Redstone, business manager of the nursing home, testified to another version of this incident attributing more explicit threats to Spears. Spears denied making the statements attributed to her by Matthey and Redstone and denied that Redstone was present when Matthey made the delivery. Matthey did not identify Redstone as present, and there are sufficient variances between the testimony of Matthey and Redstone to warrant the conclusion that if Redstone witnessed the incident, he did so from a distance and was not in a position to observe it closely. I do not rely on Redstone's version of the incident. However, Matthey appeared to be a disinterested witness who testified forthrightly and without hyperbole. I have credited Matthey and reject Spears' version of the incident 5 Teamsters Local No 115 (E.1 Lavino & Company), 157 NLRB 1637, 119 ies to the nursing home, at least until Respondent 's counsel furnished contrary written instructions in early 1973. The General Counsel contends that the recording of this information violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) relying on Local 316, United Cement, Lime, and Gypsum Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO (National Gypsum Company), 133 NLRB 1445. In that case, the union recorded license numbers of cars of nonstriking employees and published them in a publication distributed to union members in the area. Here the information recorded did not pertain to personal vehicles of employees, and there is no evidence of publication of the recorded information. There is no evidence that the recorded information was put to any improper use. I find that the recording of license numbers and other identifying information relating to trucks making deliveries to the nursing home was not coercive within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act .8 4. During the first 2 or 3 weeks of the strike on several occasions as nursing home Business Manager Redstone crossed the picket line, picket Yvonne Dodd told Redstone that they would hang his "ass" from a pole and use the pole as his backbone. Other striking employees who were picketing were present when these statements were made. On one occasion in the latter part of October, Sister Mary Modesta, supervisor of maintenance and housekeeping, observed such an incident and saw Spears standing no more than 20 feet away with a group of pickets. Spears said nothing.9 There is no question that Dodd's repeated statements to Redstone constituted threats of physical retaliation against him for continuing to work at the nursing home during the strike. Although Redstone was himself not an employee within the meaning of the Act, Dodd's statements were made in the presence of other striking employees and constituted restraint and coercion of them within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A).i0 Dodd was identified as a striking employee and a picket, but not as a picket captain. The pickets were posted and paid by Respondent and at least in theory under the direction of a business representa- tive or picket captain. Spears and Murphy had participated in and condoned by silence other threats made to persons crossing the picket line contemporaneous with these incidents. Indeed, as set forth above, Spears stood by silently at one of Dodd's threats to Redstone. As found below, picket captains for whose conduct Respondent was responsible also made threats of physical reprisal later in the strike. I find that Spears and Murphy set the example for the threats made by Dodd and other pickets on these and later occasions and that Respondent through its agents took no effective action to disavow or stop such conduct. In these circumstances, neither the presence of police at the 1642-43 6 Matthey so testified without contradiction and is credited. 7 Bell and Spears both so testified s See Local 1150, United Electrical Workers (Cory Corporation), 84 NLRB 972, 974. 9 Redstone and Sister Mary Modesta so testified to these incidents without contradiction. Although Redstone testified that he did not know whether any of Respondent's representatives were present and did not believe that they were, I have credited Sister Mary Modesta's testimony identifying Spears as present on one such occasion. 10 District 20, United Mine Workers of America (Harbert Construction Corporation), 192 NLRB 565. 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD picket line nor the verbal instructions given the pickets by Respondent absolve it from responsibility for the conduct of Dodd and other pickets.' i I find that by Dodd's threats to Redstone, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 5. Ruby Ensley and her daughter Suzanne Richardson worked at the nursing home from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. for three nights starting in late October. As Ensley left work after the first night, Spears approached her and sought to dissuade her from crossing the picket line, telling her that the women there had held jobs from 2 to 17 years and weren't going to give them up for "no women in the street, no people from Magnolia House and no drunkards." Spears told her that when they finished with the nursing home, Ensley wouldn't have a job, and would have to leave anyway so that she might as well leave then.12 Spears also said that if she wanted to work in a hospital she should go to the Union and it would send her to a hospital job. The General Counsel contends that Spears' statement implied that Respondent and the pickets were willing to resort to any means, including violence, to prevent others from working during the strike. There is no doubt that Spears stated her appeal in forceful terms. However, I do not find in her assertion that the strikers would not give up their jobs for nonstrikers, whom she disparagingly de- scribed, the alleged implied threat of reprisal. Indeed, the offer to refer Ensley to another job indicates a desire to achieve Respondent's purpose by cooperative rather than coercive means. I find that Spears' statements to Ensley did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 6. On the next morning as Ensley left work, one of the pickets left the line, approached her at a nearby bus stop, and a,-ked her if she had just left work. Ensley said that she had. Several other women, including pickets Minnie Bell and Johnnie Mae Johnson, joined them. The first picket who had questioned Ensley said that they came around to do something to her but that since she hadn't lied they wouldn't do anything to her. Minnie Bell, who was in the group, said "she was so tired of taking shit she didn't know what to do, and she wanted to bust us so bad she didn't know what to do." Bell was holding a soda bottle and a paper cup with a piece of concrete in it which she kept throwing up out of the cup as she spoke. Ensley's bus came, and she boarded it and left.13 The threatening and coercive nature of this conduct is clear and need not be spelled out. The only question is whether Respondent was responsible for it. Those identi- fied by Ensley as the speakers had been picketing immediately before speaking to her. Although they left the line and moved a short distance to talk to her, theirs was not an abandonment of picketing to engage in some unrelated conduct, but rather a redirection of their picketing to reach one in the class of prime objects of the picketing. I find that the conduct of the pickets toward Ensley was part and parcel of the picketing and that Respondent was responsible for the pickets' conduct for 11 Teamsters Local No 115 (EJ Lavino & Company), 157 NLRB 1637, 1642-43; United Rubber Workers, Local 796 (Tennessee Wheel and Rubber Company), 166 NLRB 165, 166-167, Drivers Local 695 (Tony Pellitteri Trucking Service, Inc), 174 NLRB 753, 758 12 Ensley so testified Spears testified that she did not recall talking to Ensley and never heard her name I have credited Ensley reasons stated above Accordingly, I find that the threats to Ensley made by pickets violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 7. On the morning after the third night that Ensley and Richardson worked, they left work together, were escorted to the bus stop by a policeman, and boarded a bus. A few blocks from the nursing home, Minnie Bell, Johnnie Mae Johnson and the unidentified picket who had previously spoken to Ensley boarded the bus. Two of them sat behind Ensley and Richardson, and one sat to one side of them. Ensley told Richardson that she didn't like to sit with people behind her who didn't like them and were mad at them. Ensley and Richardson got up to move. Johnnie Mae Johnson took Ensley by the arm and escorted her to the back of the bus. Johnson said, "I thought I told you not to come back here." Ensley said she was just trying to make her money like Johnson was trying to do. The unidentified woman told Ensley that people like her were the reason Sister Louise wouldn't sign "those papers." When Ensley and Richardson reached their stop, they left the bus and the others followed them. Ensley said she would see them later, and they asked where she was going and continued to follow. One of the women said, "You came on our job, so we're going to walk on your house like you walked on our job." Ensley asked why they were coming to her house because she didn't invite them. Bell said, "We may be coming to steal something, you don't know what we are coming for, we may be coming to steal." Ensley then walked up the steps of her house and told them to come in. After they entered Bell said "she was tired of talking, she was tired of taking shit, and she was ready to bust ass, she wanted to bust somebody' s ass so bad she didn't know what to do." She also said that "if she wasn't going to bust no ass she was ready to go, because she come to bust ass, she didn't come to talk, she was tired of talking." One of the women who had remained outside called for the others to come out. Johnson explained to Ensley why they should find another hospital to work in and not to return to the nursing home. The women then left. Ensley and Richardson did not go back to work at the nursing home again. During the bus ride and the conversation Bell held a soda bottle in a paper bag in one hand and waved it in front of Ensley's face when she spoke to her. She held a cup with the piece of concrete in her other hand, and repeatedly threw the concrete out of the cup and caught it. 14 After this incident, Richardson called the Union and asked for Ann Spears whose name had been given her by one of the pickets. She was referred to someone who identified himself as a Mr. Forbie or Sorbie and a director or something of the Union. She told him what had happened at her house. He said they shouldn't cross the picket line.i5 Again the coercive nature of the conduct of those who followed Ensley and Richardson home is clear and the 13 Ensley so testified without contradiction and is credited 14 Ensley and Richardson testified to this incident without contradiction Is Richardson so testified Respondent's president, John Sorbie, testified that he never heard the name Sue Richardson before, that he never had a telephone conversation with her during the period of the picketing, and that he never spoke to anyone whom he told that she shouldn't cross the picket SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION 121 only question is one of responsibility. Unlike the previous incident involving Ensley, here there is no evidence that those who followed Ensley and Richardson left the picket line immediately before following them, although the inference is strong that they had been at the nursing home and had observed Ensley and Richardson board their bus. But the participants were the same as on the previous day and the nature of the threatening conduct, apart from its locus, was closely related and a continuation of the threats of the previous day. While Respondent disclaims any knowledge of this incident, I have credited Richardson that after the pickets left her mother's home, she telephoned the union hall, spoke to a Mr. Forbie or Sorbie, and told him what had just happened. I have also credited her that his response was that she and her mother should not cross the picket line. In addition to Respondent's President Sorbie, who denied speaking to Richardson, the evidence shows that among Respondent's representatives was his son Dan Sorbie, who also occasionally visited the picket line. From these facts the inference is warranted that Richardson spoke to one of the Sorbie's who by his response condoned the conduct of those who followed Richardson and Ensley home. In these circumstances, I find that Respondent is responsible for their conduct and thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 8. In January and February 1973, Eugenia Dunn 16 worked at the nursing home as a nurse's aide. Sometime in January three pickets carrying signs told her they were going to kick her "ass." 17 I have previously found that Respondent's representatives engaged in similar threaten- ing conduct and were aware of such conduct by others on the picket line. Shortly before this incident Respondent had entered into a settlement agreement disposing of the charges based on that misconduct and had communicated new written instructions to the pickets. Plainly, however, those instructions were no more effective or sufficient than previous oral instructions to stop the threats by pickets. There is no evidence that Respondent took any further steps to remove offenders from the picket line or prevent recurrence of such conduct. I find that Respondent must bear responsibility for the threats directed at Denu and thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.18 9. On three occasions in February rocks were thrown at Denu from a car parked outside the nursing home. She identified the car from which they were thrown as a brown Plymouth Fury and testified that these incidents occurred at or about 8 p.m. when it was dark. Although Denu testified that she recognized those in the car as pickets she had seen walking with signs, her testimony as a whole is equivocal as to whether she was able to see or recognize those in the car. Although she also testified that the car was always parked outside the nursing home when she arrived at work and that pickets normally used it, no other witness identified the car or testified as to its regular use by pickets. I find that her testimony as a whole is not sufficient to establish the identity of those who threw rocks at Denu. There is also no evidence that these incidents were observed by anyone other than those directly involved. The rock throwing described by Denu is different from any of the previous misconduct by pickets, all of which was verbal. The identity of those who threw the rocks is not established, and there is no evidence other than the testimony of Denu as to the regularity of the appearance of the car outside the nursing home or its use by pickets. There is also no evidence that the rock throwing was observed by Respondent's representatives or was called to their attention. While the inference is strong that the rock throwing was not mere coincidence and was attributable at least to persons who were in sympathy with the strikers, I find the evidence insufficient to establish that Respondent was responsible for the rock throwing by the unidentified persons in the car. Accordingly, I find that Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by this conduct. 10. During April 1973, Linda House worked at the nursing home as a nurse's aide from 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. On April 5, she left the nursing home at 8 a.m. to take care of some personal matters. Picket captain Jo Ann Gathing, who was walking in front of the nursing home with a picket sign, told her "You'd better not come back." When House returned at or about 10:15 a.m. Gathing said to her, "We're going to get you now." 19 As a picket captain, Gathing was one of those through whom Respondent carried out its policies in striking and picketing the nursing home. Regardless of the limiting instructions given her, Gathing's conduct was within the general scope of her authority. I find that Respondent is responsible for her conduct, that it constituted a coercive threat, and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.20 11. When House left work that day, she started to drive home in her car. Less than a block from the nursing home, a car pulled out of an alley behind her and started to follow her. About four blocks from the nursing home, House stopped for a traffic light and the car pulled up beside her. She then saw that a man was driving, Gathing was in the back seat, and three other women from the picket line were in the car. While they were stopped Gathing called out to her, asked her why she kept crossing the picket line, and told her to stop it and quit working there. The driver yelled out, "Let's wreck her and her car," and Gathing asked her how she would like to shed her blood like "the boy" had done, which House took as a reference to a nursing home employee who had been beaten up the night before.21 At that point House drove through the red light which had not changed, and the other car followed. When House reached her home a few blocks away, the car was still following. She went past her house and shortly thereafter the car stopped following her. While this conduct occurred away from the nursing home, it commenced as House left work. With the exception of the driver of the car, those involved were pickets and included Gathing, a picket captain with line I credit Richardson's description of the call she made. 16 Her name incoirectly appears as Virginia Demu in the transcript. 17 Denu so testified without contradiction 18 Drivers Local 695 (Tony Pellitteri Trucking Service, Inc), 174 NLRB 753, 758 19 The uncontradic ted testimony of House as to this and other incidents described below is credited 20 Teamsters Local No. 115 (EJ Lavino & Company), 157 NLRB 1637, 1642, United Rubber Workers, Local 796 (Tennessee Wheel and Rubber Company), 166 NLRB 165,166-167 21 There is no allegation that the beating was attributable to Respondent 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD responsibility for the conduct of the picketing. Gathing was a willing and active participant in the incident. Indeed, it is evident that the following of House and the threats directed at her were a continuation and fulfillment of Gathing's threat to House earlier that day. I find that Respondent was responsible for Gathing's conduct and for that of those who joined with her in following and threatening House. I find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 12. On April 12, about a week later, when House came to work in the morning Gathing was in front of the nursing home. Gathing asked her "how I would like to be a bloody mess and she told me she would hurt me or kill me in some way and she would see that she got me sooner or later." For the reasons previously expressed, Respondent was responsible for Gathing's threat. Indeed, in the light of the fact that the second informal settlement agreement was executed on April 10, only 2 days before this incident, its occurrence and the incidents described below which followed soon after give strong reason to believe that its terms were taken seriously neither by Respondent nor the pickets and that whatever the verbal instructions which may have been given, they were regarded by all as more formal than substantial. I find that by this threat of picket captain Gathing, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). 13. Caldon Trice had been employed by the nursing home for a number of years before the strike. During the strike she worked only on April 13, 14, and 15. On April 13, as she left work at or about 3 p.m., Yvonne Dodd, Mary Normandy, and several other pickets were present. Dodd approached her and said, "So, you ... you was the nigger that they wanted to get" Dodd said they wouldn't allow her to work there and draw a check while they were walking the picket line.22 For reasons previously expressed, I find this conduct of the pickets attributable to Respon- dent. I further find it a threat of reprisal in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). 14. On April 14, when Trice left work at 3 p.m. Yvonne Dodd said to her, "So, you're back to work again." Dodd told her, that "I was the mother - they wanted to get, a nigger, and they would like to mess me up good." Dodd then said, "Your old sister can't walk. She's all crippled up, and we'll cripple you up just like that. We will get you."23 As above, Respondent is responsible for Dodd's threat and thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). 15. On the next day, April 15, as Trice left work, Mary Normandy, Yvonne Dodd, and picket captain Sadie Caldwell were picketing. Dodd said "This is illegal. We wants to get her and mess her up." Caldwell said, "You aren't going to work here. We're walking a picket line." Trice said nothing and got into a car that was waiting for her. After she closed the door, Caldwell hit the side window of the car with her umbrella.24 Caldwell rejoined a group of pickets and shouted, "We'll get you too, Sister Louise," to Sister Mary Louise who was standing inside the 22 Trice's uncontradicted testimony as to this and other incidents is credited 23 Dodd had previously worked with Trice's sister at the nursing home. 24 The pickets carried umbrellas with strike legends printed on them 25 In an affidavit given by Stneve she placed these incidents on different dates than in her testimony. She testified that she had difficulty door of the nursing home . Trice did not work again until after the strike. I find that Respondent is responsible for the threats and conduct of Caldwell and Dodd and thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). 16. On April 17, Jo Ann Gathing was again outside the nursing home when Linda House arrived for work at 6:30 a.m. Gathing approached her with three other women, two of whom had been in the car with Gathing 5 days earlier. Gathing blocked House's path . House tried to go around her, but Gathing stopped her. Gathing handed her a picket sign and told her to walk with them . House ignored her and tried to get around her. Gathing pinned House against a pole in front of the nursing home with the sign pushed up against her chest . Gathing said, "You've had it now, I'm tired of you. We are on strike and I wish you would quit." A police officer came out and told Gathing to release House. As House went into the nursing home , Gathing said, We will get you ." By Gathing's physical obstruction and harassment of House and by her further threat, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 17. Rita Strieve started to work at the nursing home in April 1972, and worked through the strike . During April 1973, as Strieve was coming to work , picket Louise Jordan told her they were going to kill her old mother . Jordan was walking the picket line at the time with two other pickets. Later in April, Jordan told her, "You're supposed to be dead." 25 Again these picket line threats are attributable to Respondent and violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A). I. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Employer described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Service Employees International Union Local No. 50, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Nursing Home, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. remembering dates. While it appears that Strieve's recollection of dates was uncertain and that the dates on which she placed these incidents may be inaccurate, her testimony was uncontradicted and her demeanor while testifying left no doubt that she vividly recalled these incidents and credibly described them. / SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION 123 3. By threatening employees with physical harm or other reprisals for crossing its picket line at the Employer's nursing home, by striking an employee's car with an umbrella, and by physically obstructing and harassing an employee seeking to enter the nursing home on various dates from October 1972 through April 1973, Respondent has restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER26 Respondent, Service Employees International Union Local No. 50, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and represent- atives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening employees of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Nursing Home, Inc., or any other employer doing business with it, with physical harm or other reprisals because of their desire to cross a picket line, striking their cars with any objects, physically obstructing or harassing them, or in any like or related manner restraining or coercing them in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and at any place where its meetings are customarily held, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 27 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by an official representative of Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail signed copies of the notice to said Regional Director for posting, Our Lady of Perpetual Help Nursing Home, Inc., willing, at all locations where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 26 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 27 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."