Local 30, Roofers

652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, AFL- CIO (Kitson Bros., Inc.) and Edward R. Kitson and Martin J. Sobol. Cases 4-CB-2731 and 4-CB- 2754 March 14, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On September 1, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support of the cross-exceptions and in answer to the Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Natio . it 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 briefs 1 and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order,3 as modified herein. The Administrative Law Judge's Decision omits the finding that St. Joe Paper Company has its principal office and place of business in Wilmington, Delaware, and is engaged in the manufacture of shipping containers. During the past year this Company sold goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly outside the State of Delaware. The Board finds that this Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Administrative Law Judge correctly found that Local 30 was responsible for the violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act at the St. Joe Paper Company plant as described in his Decision. How- ever, the Decision is unclear in detailing the specific times union agents were identified as being at the worksite, and in detailing other indications of Local 30's involvement in the misconduct. On April 8, 1976, the Hurlock Company, a nonunion roofer, Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied. 2 The Administrative Law Judge made several minor factual misstate- ments in the body of his Decision which do not affect the validity of his conclusions. Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, the record reveals that the Philadelphia Aquatic Club job was performed in September 1975, not April 1976; the St . Joe Paper Company job was performed in April 1976, not May; and the St. Joe Paper Company site was located in New Castle, Delaware, not Pennsylvania. Regarding the Philadelphia Aquatic Club job, it should be noted that, according to the record, the Employer arrived on the afternoon , not the morning, of September 9, 1975, that the events that were ascribed to September 10 228 NLRB No. 88 started work at the St. Joe Paper Company plant. During that morning, the general manager and the superintendent of St. Joe saw between 12 and 25 pickets at the plant gates, stopping cars carrying St. Joe employees as they tried to enter the plant. The only evidence of Local 30's involvement on this day was from the testimony of these two witnesses who indicated that they saw three or four Local 30 picket signs. On the next morning, April 9, up to 150 pickets were involved in blocking the plant gates, throwing rocks, breaking car windows, injuring a Hurlock employee, blocking an ambulance, and blocking access to the plant. No picket signs were identified that morning. The plant security guard testified that one picket had a Local 30 patch on his hat and he believed a few other pickets had similar patches on their jackets. During the incidents that morning, no Local 30 agents were identified but, around 4 o'clock that afternoon, Karl Henry, a Local 30 business agent, appeared at the plantsite and asked Hurlock if he wanted him (Henry) to send new men to the job. The next workday, April 12, according to the testimony of the security guard, between 30 and 50 pickets were present at the plant gates. At 10:10 that morning, Karl Henry accepted service of a state court temporary restraining order limiting the num- ber of pickets at the plant gates. Local 30, its officers, and members were the named defendants in that action. Picketing and the temporary blocking of cars at the plant gates continued throughout the week of April 12-16. The security guard testified that some of the pickets were wearing Local 30 patches during the week but that no picket signs appeared until April 14. Finally, the security guard also testified that on April 14 Karl Henry spoke to him, asked to see Hurlock, and said "maybe we can get this thing straightened out ...." No further incidents occurred after April 16. While this evidence does not directly show that Local 30 agents knew of, authorized, or directed the events that preceded Karl Henry's appearance on the afternoon of April 9, the record is clear that the pickets used Local 30 picket signs on April 8, that throughout the picketing several of the pickets wore Local 30 emblems, and that Karl Henry, a Local 30 business agent, was repeatedly observed in the vicinity of the St. Joe Paper Company plant. In. occurred on September 11; that the person who threatened Kitson with his fist on September 11 was unidentified in the record and was not Mike Daly; and that John McCullough, an officer of Local 30, was not identified as being present at the worksite. Finally, the Department of Labor documents referred to in the Decision were not from 1965, but covered the years 1972- 75. 3 The General Counsel excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to expressly prohibit employee assaults and threats of assaults and other acts against supervisors and employers . We find meet in the General Counsel's exception and we shall modify the recommended Order and notice accordingly. LOCAL 30, ROOFERS 653 Teamsters Local 536, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (The Connecticut Foundry Company), 165 NLRB 916, 920-921(1967), it was stated, "there is no direct evidence that any of the persons involved were agents of Respondent. However, such inferences as are reasonable may be drawn and may sustain the General Counsel's burden of proof where as here there is no evidence to rebut them." In this case a Local 30 agent was identified as being present shortly after some of the disturbances. In view of the fact that Respondent presented no witnesses of its own to refute the agent's involvement, it may reasonably be inferred that Respondent knew of and acquiesced in the misconduct that occurred at the St. Joe Paper Company plant. Cf. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Gener- al Electric Company), 183 NLRB 1225 (1970). It has long been settled that, when misconduct occurs on a picket line, if the union agents responsi- ble for the picketing do not take affirmative steps to disavow the conduct and restrain, reprimand, or discipline the offenders, the union will be deemed to have acquiesced in and ratified the misconduct .4 The record is bare of any evidence that Karl Henry or any other union agent acted so as to disavow responsibility for misconduct on the picket line.5 The broad remedial order issued by the Adminis- trative Law Judge is justified in view of the conduct involved in the instant proceeding and the Decision reached by the Board regarding other 8(b)(1)(A) violations committed by Local 30 in Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., supra. 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, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Associa- tion, AFL-CIO, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a): ' Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.), 219 NLRB 142 (1975); International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (General Electric Company Circuit Protective Devices Department), 189 NLRB 50 (1971) 8 The Board has recently found this same Union, Local 30, responsible for other 8(bx1)(A) violations, based on facts similar to those underlying the incident at the St . Joe Paper Company plant herein . Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, AFL-CIO (Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.), 227 NLRB No 229 "(a) Restraining or coercing Kitson Bros., Inc., Hurlock Roofing Co., t/a Warren W. Williams, St. Joe Paper Company, or any other employer or their employees or supervisors within the area in which Respondent Local purports to represent employees, by threatening them with physical injury, threatening to inflict bodily harm upon their relatives, throwing stones at them, physically blocking workway en- trances to prevent them from working, inflicting bodily harm upon them, mass picketing employee entrances, or destroying personal property for the purpose of coercing and restraining employees in the exercise of their statutory rights." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. CHAIRMAN MURPHY, concurring in part and dissent- ing in part: I agree with my colleagues that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by the misconduct on the picket line at the Kitson job in September 1975. However, I cannot agree that the evidence establishes that the Respondent was respon- sible for the violence which occurred at the Hurlock job in April 1976. The only evidence is that on April 8 some strikers were carrying Local 30 picket signs and on April 9 some of them were wearing Local 30 emblems during the time when violence occurred. The afternoon of A pril 9, after the violence was ended, Karl Henry, an agent of the Respondent, appeared at the jobsite and asked Hurlock if he wanted new men sent to the job. Henry was present at various times during the rest of the picketing-from April 12 through 16-and while temporary blocking of cars at the plant gates continued through that week there were no further violent acts. My colleagues concede that the evidence does not show directly that Local 30 agents knew of, autho- rized, or directed the events prior to Henry's appearance on the afternoon of April 9. Nor is there any evidence that the Respondent became aware of and ratified or adopted it thereafter. Yet because the pickets used Local 30 signs, several pickets wore Local 30 emblems, Karl Henry was repeatedly observed in the vicinity (after the violence ceased), and there is no denial of its agents' involvement, my colleagues infer that Respondent knew of and (1977). In that case, in the 1974 incident, unidentified persons threatened employees at nonunion jobsites and damaged property of employers in the presence of employees. The Board held that, based on the presence of Local 30 picket signs and the fact that a Local 30 organizer was later seen briefly conferring with three or four pickets, Local 30 was responsible for conduct constituting 8(bXl)(A) violations which occurred even prior to the presence of the organizer. There was no evidence that any violence occurred during the brief time the organizer was present. In that case as well as in the instant case, we rely to a large extent on the failure of the union agent to affirmatively disavow the misconduct of the pickets. 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD acquiesced in the misconduct. But this rationale is, in effect, based on a presumption of union responsibili- ty and knowledge of misconduct on a picket line which must be rebutted by evidence that the agent was not involved. This is not and never has been the law, and the case cited in the majority opinion (Teamsters Local 536 (The Connecticut Foundry Company)) does not support such an approach. Rather, that decision stands for the proposition that where the facts themselves reasonably support an inference of a union agent's involvement in miscon- duct such inference stands in the absence of evidence to rebut it. There the record was replete with evidence from which the inference was drawn. Thus, the facts themselves must be the basis for the inference-the absence of rebuttal evidence is not a factor to be considered until after the inference of union responsibility has been drawn. Here, the only evidence is that which I have summarized above; 6 the critical facts which appear therefrom are that violence occurred on a picket line, and a union business agent appeared and was present after it was terminated. This alone is insufficient to create the presumption that the agent was involved. The only other possible consideration might be that the Respondent's agents were involved in similar activities in September 1975, some 6 or 7 months earlier. But that was too far removed to warrant a finding that there was a pattern of conduct from which the Respondent may reasonably be found to have approved and been responsible for the April violence. Accordingly, the General Counsel did not make out a prima facie case and there was no burden placed upon the Respondent to go forward with rebuttal evidence. I would therefore dismiss this allegation of the complaint. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Kitson Bros., Inc., Hurlock Roofing Co., t/a Warren W. Williams, St. Joe Paper Company, or any employ- er, or their employees or supervisors, by threaten- ing them with physical injury. WE WILL NOT threaten or inflict bodily harm upon relatives of such employees or employers to restrain them or coerce them. WE WILL NOT throw stones at employees or employers for such purposes. WE WILL NOT physically block workway en- trances to prevent employees or employers from working in order to restrain or coerce them. WE WILL NOT actually inflict bodily injury upon employees or employers. WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing or otherwise block entry to worksites in order to restrain or coerce employees or employers. WE WILL NOT damage or destroy personal property for such purposes. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. LOCAL 30, UNITED SLATE, TILE AND COMPOSITION ROOFERS, DAMP AND WATERPROOF WORKERS ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 6 Contrary to the summary in fn. 5 of the majority opinion herein, the facts in Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, AFL-CIO (Associated Builders and Con- tractors, Inc), 227 NLRB No. 229 (1977), are not identical to those here The facts found by the Administrative Law Judge there showed that, dunng at least part of the 1973 incident, named union representatives were present at the time of the misconduct and/or participated therein (i e., Local Business Agents Carlton Brown and Joseph Enwright) and that dunng the 1975 incident an officer of the local (i e, Conn) was present and participated in the violence While in 1974 the union agent appeared on the picket line at a time when no violence was occurring, the misconduct both preceded and followed his discussion with the pickets ; further, this was the same Carlton Brown who had been present at and joined in the 1973 violence , and the inference was warranted that he knew of but did not caution against the violence In contrast, here the union agent appeared after the misconduct had ceased and no further violence or threats occurred during or after the said agent's presence there, and therefore it cannot be inferred that the union agent did not attempt to control the picket line activity. Hence, I would find no violation here THOMAS A. Ricci, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing in this proceeding was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on June 28 and 29, 1976, on separate complaints by the General Counsel against Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, AFL-CIO, here called the Respondent or the Union. The complaint in Case 4-CB-2731 issued on April 13, 1976, on a charge filed on March 10, 1976, by Edward R. Kitson, an individual. The complaint in Case 4-CB- 2754 issued on May 19, 1976, on a charge filed on April 12, 1976, by Martin J. Sobol, an individual. The two cases were consolidated for a single hearing. The issue presented is whether the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, in its picketing activities against two nonunion employers-Kitson, Bros., Inc., here called Kitson, and Hurlock Roofing Co., t/a F LOCAL 30, ROOFERS 655 Warren W. Williams, here called Hurlock. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Kitson, a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania corporation, has its principal office and place of business in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, and is engaged in the roofing repair and construction business. During the past year, this Company purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Hurlock, a State of Delware corporation, has its principal office and place of business in Wilmington, Delware, and is also engaged in the roofing, siding repair, and construction business. During the past year, Hurlock purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from out-of-state sources. I find that both of these Companies are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I find that Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Picture of the Case Both Kitson and Hurlock operate as nonunion contrac- tors. For some time Local 30 has been carrying on a campaign in the general area of Philadelphia to put a stop to roofing work performed by employers whose employees are not represented by the Respondent. In April 1976 Kitson was doing a job for the Philadelphia Aquatic Club, repairing the roof. In May the Hurlock Company was engaged in another roofing repair contract for the St. Joe Paper Company, on its building in New Castle, Pennsylva- nia. Local 30 picketed both projects. The pickets carried signs, designating themselves as "Local 30," identifying their pinpointed offending employer as Kitson and Hur- lock, as the case may be, and informing the public, or whatever employees might work at the two locations, that those employers - Kitson and Hurlock - were not paying union wages, or were paying substandard wages. The precise language on the picket signs is not exactly spelled out in the oral testimony - there were no precise replicas of the picket signs placed in evidence - but this was, concededly, the message announced. There is no allegation of wrongdoing in the fact of such picketing per se. One of the premises picketed, that of St. Joe Paper Company, had two gates, one for the plant employees and another for any contractors' employees, such as those of the Hurlock Company . But again, there is no allegation that the Union picketed the wrong gate, that it engaged in secondary as distinguished from primary picketing. All that is involved in either of the two complaints is the charge that the Union violated the statute by the manner in which it carried on the ostensible picketing activities - that it engaged in violence, mass picketing, obstruction of the various entrances to the work areas, damage to persons and property, and threats of personal and property injury to the employees coming to work. A number of witnesses testified in support of the complaint. In order to make it unnecessary to call additional witnesses to the same events, counsel for the Respondent stipulated with the General Counsel that were certain named further witnesses called, their testimony would be consistent with and supportive of that of certain other witnesses who had already in fact given oral testimony. The Respondent called no witnesses in defense. From this it follows there is no need to detail in this Decision what testimony was given by the various individual witnesses. The testimony of each of them stands uncontradicted, is perfectly plausible and credible on the face of the record, and therefore must be taken as fact. It will all be so stated here. The Respondent's defense, as articulated by its counsel at the hearing, is a contention that the testimony falls short of proving that anything that happened on picket lines, or otherwise at the two locations in question, was authorized or approved by agents of the Union, and that, therefore, whatever may have occurred was no more than misconduct by individual members of the Union, not chargeable to the labor organization as such. None of the union officers or agents appeared at the hearing. Exhibit documents re- ceived into evidence prove that the Union refused to accept four envelopes of registered mail from the Board's Regional Office, these containing the two charges filed and the two complaints issued. Somehow, I suppose, the Union did get its hands on the complaints, for it filed answers to both. The exhibits also show that agents of the Union - Michael Daly, Karl Henry, and Steven Traitz - refused to accept registered mail at the Union's office, each envelope containing a subpena for them to appear at the hearing. One example will suffice to illuminate the nature of this theory of defense. From 1972 through 1975 there was a business agent of the Respondent named Karl Henry. When a local authority deputy sheriff appeared at the St. Joe Paper premises on April 12, 1976, to serve upon a representative of Local 30 a copy of the temporary restraining order issued 3 days earlier by a state court judge, one of the pickets stepped up, said he was Karl Henry, and accepted service of the injunction. To theorize, as does the Respondent, that this proves no more than the fact some unidentified person presumed to arrogate another's name to himself, suggests scholastic, or talmudic, argumentation, rather than Aristotelian reasoning. The Kitson Job The Kitson Company started this job on September 9. When Edward Kitson, the employer, arrived the next morning with some of his men he found three or four pickets, with Steven Traitz among them. Traitz is the business representative of Local 30. Kitson had met him in August 1975, in a meeting when Traitz had tried to convince Kitson to have his employees join the Union. Traitz gave his visiting card to Kitson that day; it is a regular professional card, with the full name of the 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent and Traitz identified as its business represen- tative. The roof on which the Kitson men worked is only 12 feet off the ground and the fence - of wire mesh - at the edge of the property no more than 5 or 6 feet away. When Kitson and his men had started working, Traitz, from outside the fence, called out, "You are making a lot of enemies," and "You should get off the job" The pickets were inside the parking lot, and Kitson called the police to get them off. By now there were 10 pickets; they did step out, and kept calling the nonunion men "scabs" and dirty names. When Kitson's men were finished and leaving, Traitz called out they "had better not come back the following day." The next day, September 10, Kitson arrived with 10 or 12 of his employees in 4 cars. They found the driveway into the parking lot blocked by an automobile and a small truck. At the second entrance to the same premises some pickets stood in the driveway, at least 12 of them. Again Traitz was among the pickets. When the men started to work, the pickets kept yelling "with constant profanity .. . Kitson, we are going to blow your head off." Soon there were 20 to 25 pickets, and they stayed all day. Again, from 5 feet away from the roof on which the men worked, the yelling continued "You . . . we're going to blow your head off, we're going to get your . . . where's your wife? When you get home tonight you better make sure your children are there, where exactly is your wife right now?" Then the pickets began to throw stones at the workmen ; Kitson asked for help from the police, who were standing by, and the rock throwing slowed, but still continued. About 2 p.m. the work for the day was finished, but the entrances to both parking areas were blocked by a car and by a truck as the pickets milled about. The police ignored Kitson's plea for a police escort out of town, and the men sat inside and waited . One half hour later the police yielded and, with a police car in front, Kitson's workers all drove away from the premises. Mike Daly, a business representative of Local 30, was among the pickets that day. At one point he entered the building and threatened Kitson personally with his clenched fist. It took a policeman to "break it up." On September 15, Monday, Kitson's people were back at work. Again there were 20 to 30 pickets, wearing Local 30 badges and carrying the same signs . They again threw stones at the employees on the roof, yelled threats of physical violence, and spit at them continuously from 5 feet away at the fence. Now the Kitson Company had a professional photographer take pictures of the activities. Again Traitz and Daly were among the pickets. John McCullough, treasurer of the Respondent, also appeared; one witness at the hearing said he knew the man to be president of Local 30. A document filed by the Respondent with the U.S. Department of Labor for the year 1965 calls him the treasurer. Clearly he was an agent. Carlton Brown, a full-time organizer on the payroll of the Respondent, was also among the pickets. The presence of all these union agents - Traitz, Daly, Brown, and McCullough - is proved, over and above the identifica- tions made by the witnesses who testified, by the photo- graphs taken during the picketing described above. In 1972 there had been a Board election among Kitson's employ- ees; the employees had rejected Local 30. In a preelection meeting, when Local 30 was attempting to persuade the employees to vote for the Union, George Huttenlock, a Kitson employee, heard both Traitz and Brown speak on behalf of Local 30. And the names of all four of these agents appear on the report which the Respondent filed in 1975 with the Federal Government. With so many agents of Local 30 present, and therefore of necessity giving their approval to what the pickets were doing, and with some of them, at least, shown to have participated in the improper conduct, I find that the following acts are chargeable to the Respondent and constitute deliberate violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint ; threatening employees with physical injury, threatening to inflict bodily harm upon relatives of employees, throwing stones at employees, physically blocking workway entrances to prevent employ- ees from working, and mass picketing employees entranc- es.' The Hurlock Job The Hurlock Company started work with its employees at the St. Joe Paper plant on April 8, and continued for several weeks. On that morning, when the St. Joe general manager arrived at 8:15 he found about 25 pickets in front of the building. The property has two entrances, one then marked for St. Joe employees and the other for subcontrac- tors. At the company gate, two men stood in front of the manager's car while another approached to speak to him on the side. Asked who the roofing contractor was, he said Hurlock, and the picket then called these people scabs and asked "why I had given the contract job to a nonunion contractor?" The manager came in. The pickets were wearing signs saying "Local 30 . . . Hurlock pays below minimum wages." The St. Joe plant superintendent also arrived early that morning. He found 12 or 15 men standing in front of the company gate. They told him they were from Local 30, and were waiting for the business agent. Soon St . Joe employees started to arrive. One of them, Charles Spratly, stopped at the gate in his car because the pickets were blocking him, standing in front of his vehicle. One of them asked did he not know there was a strike going on, and told him to go home. Spratly backed away and went home. He did not return that day. The pickets stood in front of another employee's car, that of Stephen Forrester, but he stepped on the gas and drove right through; at this the pickets jumped away. In a few minutes the pickets stood in front of another man's car, but he too continued right on and the pickets scattered in a hurry. Later, during the afternoon, several second shift employees began to arrive; again the pickets refused to let their cars pass. As the superintendent testified: "I saw the cars being stopped and I saw them backing - the picketers backing the cars out - flagging them back. I did see that, yes." N L.R.B v Drivers, Chauffeurs, Helpers, Local Union No. 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers ofAmerica, 362 U S 274 ( 1960). LOCAL 30, ROOFERS 657 When the general manager arrived the next morning, he found over 100 pickets posted at the company gate. The employees could not get in and he did not open the gate for the cars to try to come through because his supervisor advised him not to try it. When the manager arrived in his car there were two other supervisors also arriving in their cars - Ewald and another. Five masked pickets ap- proached Ewald's car - four stood in front of the car and the fifth talked to the driver, and said : "Don't come in." The manager, who was behind, started to get out of his car, but four pickets approached him from the side. With this he decided to yield, called to Ewald to "back up," and all three of the supervisors drove to the adjacent parking lot on the property of General Electric Company, which is next door to St. Joe. Now the Hurlock workmen arrived , in a string of six trucks. The pickets - now numbering close to 150 - started throwing rocks at them from both sides of the road in front of the St. Joe plant. The pickets waved ax handles. One Hurlock man was struck by a rock hurled by a picket as he entered the reserved contractor employee gate. Another stone, thrown across the property fence, smashed a window in a St. Joe Company truck. Still another one went through the window of an automobile belonging to the security guard St. Joe had hired. By this time St. Joe's employees - well over 35 of them - were all standing in the General Electric lot next door just awaiting the outcome. Their supervisors told everybody to go home. This was the day a restraining order was issued in the state. court. I think the superintendent correctly summed up the situation when he said at the hearing : "And acting in the position that I have, I, in turn, told all of my supervisors, and I 'did, myself, instruct all people to leave the premises at once - anyone in the area - we were afraid they were going to be harmed." An ambulance was called for the man who had been hit in the head ; 20-25 pickets surrounded it, yelling "that the man was dead . . . forget it." The ambulance turned away and left. Then 15 minutes later a police car came and took the man away. This was when the St . Joe management decided to send all its people home. There is also uncontradicted testimony that some employees came in and some turned away. In consequence, on each of several days the St. Joe employees gathered on the adjacent General Electric Company lot, and they entered the property to work only when a police escort car came and led them all in . This was also the time when Karl Henry, on behalf of Local 30, accepted service of the local court restraining order . On one occasion Henry told a security guard to go inside and call Mr . Hurlock out, with the phrase : "Ask Buddy Hurlock to come and talk to me; maybe we can get this thing straightened out. . . . Just tell him that Karl Henry wants to talk to him." With the pickets wearing Local 30 badges, with the picket signs reading "Local 30," and with Henry, the business agent, so active in the midst of the activities, I find the record evidence supports a finding , which I make, that the misconduct thus proved was authorized and approved by the Respondent labor organization. Accordingly I find that, by physically preventing employees from entering their work areas, by blocking automobiles from entering the work premises, by throwing stones at employees to prevent them from crossing picket lines , by inflicting bodily injury upon employees, and by destroying property, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent Local's violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, occurring in connection with its operations and with the operations of the employers against whom such acts were directed, have a close, intimate, ands substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. THE REMEDY There remains the question whether the appropriate cease-and-desist order in this case should be a broad one, extending to the entire area of the Respondent's jurisdic- tional operations, or limited only to its activities vis-a-vis the Kitson Company and the Hurlock Company. On this question, I deem it correct to consider also findings made in the prior proceeding Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and WaterproofWorkers Associ- ation, AFL-CIO (Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.), 227 NLRB No. 229 (1976), in which another Administra- tive Law Judge found similar violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) to have been committed by the Respondent. As here, the affirmative testimony in that earlier proceeding was not contradicted by any agents of the Local. While it is true that, under the scheme of the statute an Administra- tive Law Judge's Decision is subject to review by the Board itself, it is safe to assume that findings based upon uncontradicted testimony will stand undisturbed . Accord- ingly, I will issue the usual broad order against the Respondent. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By threatening employees with physical injury, by threatening to inflict bodily harm upon relatives of employees, by throwing stones at employees, by physically blocking workway entrances to prevent employees from working, by inflicting bodily injury upon employees, by mass picketing employee entrances , and by destroying property, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)(A) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting 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 this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the following recommended: 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER2 The Respondent, Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing employees of Kitson Bros., Inc., Hurlock Roofing Co., t/a Warren W. Williams, St. Joe Paper Company, or any other employer within the area in which Respondent Local purports to represent employ- ees, by threatening employees with physical injury , threat- ening to inflict bodily harm upon relatives of employees, throwing stones at employees, physically blocking work- way entrances to prevent employees from working, inflict- ing bodily harm upon employees , mass picketing employee entrances, or destroying personal property for the purpose of coercing and restraining employees in the exercise of their statutory rights. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2 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. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its office and place of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted . Reason- able steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Publish, in at least two newspapers of general distribution within the jurisdiction of Respondent Local 30, copies of said notice, which publications shall run on at least four occasions in at least 2 consecutive weeks. (c) Sign and return to the Regional Director for Region 4, sufficient copies of said notices to be distributed by said Regional Director to Kitson Bros., Inc., Hurlock Roofing Co., and St. Joe Paper Company. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 3 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.