International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America

694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Teamsters Local 115 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Oakwood Chair Manu- facturing Co., Inc. Case 4-CB-4583 Margaret M. McGovern, Esq., for the General Counsel. Norton H. Brainard, III, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylva- nia, for the Respondent. 25 November 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND JOHANSEN On 21 March 1985 Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen R. Benard issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in sup- port of the judge's decision. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. 3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Teamsters Local 115 a/w International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolution unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings 2 We adopt the judge's finding that Thomas Quinn's conduct of 28 Jan- uary 1983 is attributable to the Respondent We therefore find it unneces- sary to pass on her characterization of Quinn as a "union representative" in part 3 of the "Analysis and Conclusions" section of her decision. 3 The judge recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from "in any other manner" restraining or coercing employees of Oakwood Chair or any other employer in the exercise of their protect- ed Sec 7 rights. In H,ckmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), we held that such broad injunctive language is warranted only when a respondent has been shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act, or has engaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for the employees' fundamental statutory rights. The Respond- ent's violations in this case when viewed against the backdrop of other similar unlawful conduct by the Respondent, including the extensive and prolonged egregious 8(b)(1)(A) violations recently found in Teamsters Local 115 (Gross Metal Products), 275 NLRB 1547 (1985), and cases cited at fn 3 therein, meet this test Accordingly, we shall adopt the Order recommended by the judge Member Dennis agrees that a broad order is warranted, but does not rely on Teamsters Local 115 (Gross Metal Products), surpa, in which she dissented from the majority's failure to accept a formal posthearing settle- ment containing a nonadmission clause. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARY ELLEN R. BENARD, Administrative Law Judge. The original charge in Case 4-CB-4583 was filed on February 1, 1983, by Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Oakwood or the Employer) against Teamsters Local 115 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Respondent). On March 11, 1983, the complaint issued alleging, in substance, that the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act by various acts of misconduct in connection with a strike against Oakwood. The Respondent filed an answer in which it denied the commission of any unfair labor prac- tices. A hearing was held before me on June 4 and 5, 1984, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Following the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs, which have been considered. On the entire record in this case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol- lowing FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc. is a Pennsyl- vania corporation which, at relevant times, was engaged in the manufacture and wholesale and retail rental and sale of table and chairs from its plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During the 12-month period preceding is- suance of the complaint, a representative period, the ,,Em- ployer in the course and conduct of its business oper- ations sold and shipped from its Philadelphia plant prod- ucts valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The answer admits and I find that Oakwood is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act, and I further find that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background During the time of the events at issue,' Oakwood was in the business of importing and assembling chairs for use in restaurants and of renting folding chairs and other items for large parties. The Company's sole facility was i The parties stipulated that Oakwood ceased doing business in June 1983 277 NLRB No. 68 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115 (OAKWOOD CHAIR) on Callowhill Street in Philadelphia and comprised a building and parking lot. The parking lot was behind a fence with a sliding gate and led to the firm's loading dock. Following a Board-conducted election, the Respond- ent was certified in August 1982 as the collective-bar- gaining representative of Oakwood's approximately 15 full-time, regular part-time, and seasonal drivers, assem- blers, and helpers. Oakwood and the Respondent held a number of bargaining sessions in September, October, and November 1982, but never reached agreement on a contract. Jack Pinheiro, the president of Oakwood, cre- dibly testified that the last bargaining session was on No- vember 30, 1982, and that at that meeting one of the members of the Respondent's negotiating team advised him that a strike would begin the next day. However, it is undisputed that no strike was called at that time, al- though J. Pinheiro further credibly testified that Oak- wood's management was certain that there would be a strike at some point. B. The Strike 1. The events of January 24 Barry Pinheiro, Jack Pinheiro's brother and, at rele- vant times, Oakwood's treasurer, was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Company. Barry Pinheiro testified that on January 24, 1983,2 he was driving to work about 6:30 or 6:45 a.m. when a George Cokes, who sometimes worked for Oakwood as a janitor, stopped him and told him there was a large group of men at the plant. Pinheiro told Cokes to get in the car and the two men then drove to Oakwood's facility, where Pinheiro saw a group of 25 to 35 picketers massed in front of the gate to the parking lot. According to Barry Pinheiro, when he drove up to the plant a dozen or more picketers surrounded his car and when he got out of his car they surrounded him, shouting and cursing at him. Pinheiro said that he wanted to open the gate to the parking lot, but when he started forward some of the picketers asked him if he was going to leave his car. He replied some- thing to the effect that he was covered by insurance and tried to push through the crowd, but found it difficult to do so because the picketers continuously bumped him with their shoulders, asking him what he was trying to do and telling him he had "better watch it." When Barry Pinheiro eventually reached the gate to the parking lot, he found that he was unable to insert his key into the padlock on the gate. He then walked to the front door to Oakwood's offices, but picketers again blocked his way. When he finally arrived at the door he again discovered that his key would not fit into the lock, so he made his way back to his car; as he did so, accord- ing to Barry Pinheiro, the picketers called him names, such as "mother-fucker" and "faggot," and applied simi- lar terms to Cokes. It is undisputed that two organizers for the Respondent, Richard Hart and Robert Hen- ninger, both of whom were full-time employees of the Union, were present throughout the incident, and Barry Pinheiro testified that at some point Henninger, who 2 All dates are 1983 unless otherwise indicated 695 held some papers in his hand, told him to "sign the con- tract." Barry Pinheiro further testified that he left the build- ing and that as he did so he noticed that no one was at the rear entrance. In consequence, after driving to a tele- phone and calling Jack Pinheiro, Barry Pinheiro returned to Oakwood's premises and gained access to the building through the unguarded door. At some time between 7 and 7:30 a.m. employees of Oakwood began to arrive; al- though some employees picketed , most of them were sta- tioned at the rear of the building. Jack Pinheiro testified that after his brother telephoned and told him about the picketing, he drove to the plant with his son, Mitchell, arriving about 7:45 or 8 a.m. Ac- cording to Jack Pinheiro, as he and Mitchell approached the plant they saw 20 to 30 picketers massed in front of the gate to the lot. All of Oakwood's regular employees were also present, but most of them were standing across the street from the Oakwood facility. Jack Pinheiro testi- fied that he tried to walk up the ramp leading to the front door, but was blocked by picketers, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder, yelled profanities, told him to "sign the contract," and shouted, "[Y]ou'll be sorry." Accord- ing to Jack Pinheiro, he would "inch forward," the pick- eters would give way slightly, and in that manner he made his way up the ramp. Two or three picketers stood in front of the door, initially preventing Jack Pinheiro from opening it, but he eventually entered the building. Barry Pinheiro testified that later that morning he learned that the battery cables and distributor wires on Oakwood's trucks had been cut, and that a tow truck was called to take the trucks to be repaired. When the tow truck arrived, Barry Pinheiro went to open the gate; however, according to both Pinheiros, the picketers blocked the entrance to the lot, preventing the tow truck from getting to the trucks. Jack Pinheiro testified that he called the tow truck company, asked why the truck had not come in, and was told, apparently by the owner of the company, that the driver was frightened . Jack Pin- heiro said he would call the police civil disobedience squad and ask for officers to be present when the truck came back; the owner said that the driver refused to return, but that he would come himself. Accordingly, Jack Pinheiro arranged for the civil disobedience squad to come to the plant and while they were there the tow truck owner arrived. It is undisputed that this individual was a "very big" man, and that he was accompanied by a very large dog. The tow truck removed the Oakwood trucks from the lot, apparently without further incident. Anthony Schrader, a locksmith, testified that about 8:30 or 9 a.m. on January 24 he was called to the Oak- wood facility. According to Schrader, when he arrived at the plant there were about 15 men standing in front of the gate to the lot. One of the men asked Schrader what he was going to do and he replied that he was there to fix the locks. Some of the men laughed and Schrader started to walk away, but then turned around and asked Hart if his truck was safe; Hart said that it was not. Schrader testified that notwithstanding this response he went to the front door of the building and someone let him in and explained the situation. Schrader then re•. 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD moved the lock from the door and took it to the truck where he repaired it. He then went back toward the door, but a group of picketers blocked his way. Accord- ing to Schrader, he just stopped to let the men go around him and they did, passing him shoulder-to-shoul- der and brushing against him. When he again returned to the truck, the picketers told him to pack up his tools and leave. Schrader testified that he had more work to do inside the building but did not want to be out of sight of his truck, so he went to work on the lock on the gate. However, as he started to cut the lock with his boltcut- ters, a couple of the picketers came up to him and told him not to cut the lock, and another said that he had better not cut the lock or the speaker, whom Schrader subsequently identified as Hart,3 would kick his "fucking ass." Schrader further testified that despite this threat he cut the bolt and nothing happened. Both Pinheiros testified that when customers came toward the gate the picketers shouted at them and crowded in front of the gate and that everytime the gate was opened the picketers shut it again, so no vehicles could enter the lot, and that in consequence Oakwood was unable to conduct any business the first day of the strike. Jack Pinheiro further testified that when custom- ers approached the building the picketers would block their path, calling them "scabs" and telling them to take their business to Oakwood's competitors. The Respondent's witnesses gave a significantly differ- ent version of the events of January 24 than that provid- ed by witnesses for the General Counsel. Thus, Hen- ninger, Hart, and Carlos Matos, a part-time employee of Oakwood, testified that there were only 10 or 15 picket- ers at the Oakwood facility that day. According to Hen- ninger and Hart, they were standing by the front door to the plant when Barry Pinheiro arrived that morning; as Barry Pinheiro approached, Henninger advised him that the Union was on strike and that he should settle the contract and end the strike. The two organizers testified that Pinheiro said, "Fuck you," that Henninger respond- ed, "Well, fuck you, too," and that Pinheiro then opened the door, slamming it into Henninger and, according to the latter, "practically knocking me over," and went inside. Henninger and Hart further testified that although they were at the picket line all day, they did not observe any of the picketers jostling or blocking either of the Pinheiro brothers; Henninger's and Hart's testimony about these issues was also substantially corroborated by another picketer, Thomas Quinn, who was a member of 9 When Schrader initially testified about the conversation concerning the safety of his truck he identified Hart, who was in the hearing room, as the individual who told him that his truck was not safe Later, howev- er, Schrader testified that he did not recognize any of the picketers who spoke to him as being in the room Still later, during his cross-examina- tion, Schrader identified Hart as the individual who made the threat when Schrader went to cut the bolt on the gate Although this identifica- tion may, at first blush, seem to be inconsistent with Schrader's earlier statement that he did not recognize any of the persons who spoke to him as being in the hearing room, I am convinced that Schrader was confused at the time of the earlier statement and did not intend the answer he gave Schrader was an extremely impressive and essentially disinterested witness who seemed to attempt to honestly recount events I therefore credit him the Respondent but was unemployed at the time of the events in issue. Henninger further testified that there was no problem with the locks to the parking lot gate or the front door and both Henninger and Quinn testified that they did not see Schrader come to the facility on January 24.4 Hart conceded that a locksmith came to the plant and fixed the locks that day, but denied making any threats to him or suggesting that his truck would not be safe. With respect to the tow truck incident, Henninger tes- tified that a tow truck arrived at the premises about mid- morning, but that Matos, who Henninger believed was acquainted with the tow truck driver, talked to the driver and after that conversation the driver left. Again, Henninger's testimony was substantially corroborated by Quinn and Hart. In further corroboration, Matos testified that he was acquainted with the driver and asked him to respect the picket line, and the driver agreed to do so. Henninger and Quinn also testified that when potential customers of Oakwood approached the premises they would be told that there was a strike and asked to honor the picket line; they were also advised that if they wanted to rent chairs, there was another firm which would gladly rent to them. According to Henninger, customers either entered Oakwood's building or left, but he did not see any potential customers try to drive into Oakwood's parking lot. Hart testified that he did not see any customers that day. I did not find most of the testimony by the Respond- ent's witnesses to be credible. Henninger, Hart, Quinn, and Matos did not appear to be at all candid or forth- right but, on the contrary, seemed to be more anxious to tailor their testimony to fit the Respondent's defenses than to provide me with an accurate account of events. In contrast, both Barry and Jack Pinheiro seemed to tes- tify honestly and to exhibit good recollection. Further, the testimony of the Pinheiros with respect to the prob- lems with the locks was corroborated by Schrader, who, as noted above, I found to be honest and credible. I therefore find that the various incidents and situations of January 24 occurred as the Pinheiros and Schrader de- scribed them. 2. The events of January 25 and 26 Barry Pinheiro testified that there were only about one-fifth as many picketers at Oakwood on January 25 as there had been the previous day. Jack Pinheiro testified that on January 25 and 26 a few customers crossed the picket line and that although on the first 2 days of the strike he parked his car off Oakwood 's premises by the third day he had decided that it was senseless to pay to park elsewhere and so he parked in Oakwood's lot. However, according to Jack Pinheiro, each day for the first week or so of the strike he was required to cut the lock on the gate in order to get into the lots Jack Pin- 4 Quinn also testified that he did not know of any problem with the locks 5 According to Jack Pinheiro, the Company bought two boxes of locks, all fitting the same keys, at wholesale price Every night the gate was locked, if the key did not work the next day the lock would be cut and a new lock put on the gate TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115 (OAKWOOD CHAIR) heiro further testified that the first day he drove into the lot the picketers told him that "something could happen" to his car if he parked it there, suggesting that "stones could fall off the railroad tracks and maybe break your window." Schrader testified that he returned to Oakwood on January 26 and that there were about 15 picketers present at the time, but that he did not have any conver- sations with any of them. For the reasons stated above, I credit the Pinheiros and Schrader. 3. The events of January 28 Barry Pinheiro testified that on January 28 he picked up one of the Oakwood trucks at the garage where it had been repaired and then drove the truck to pick up a load of chairs that had been rented to a customer the previous week. He then drove back to Oakwood's facili- ty, accompanied by two striker replacements , Anthony Weaver and Raymond Howard. According to Barry Pin- heiro, he did not have any difficulty driving the truck across the picket line because the truck's speed was about 30 miles per hour at the time. After unloading the rental chairs from the truck, Barry Pinheiro, Weaver, and Howard reloaded the truck with some chairs Oak- wood had assembled for a Chinese restaurant located in South Philadelphia, got back in the truck, and, about 12:30 p.m., left to deliver the chairs. Pinheiro testified that he was apprehensive about making the trip because it was the first time since the strike began that Oakwood had tried to go in or out of the parking lot with one of the company trucks. It is undisputed that Henninger , Hart, Quinn, and Matos saw Barry Pinheiro and the helpers leave the Oakwood lot and that they followed the truck in the car which the Respondent provided to Henninger for his use. Pinheiro testified that when he arrived at his destina- tion he parked the truck on the street and Henninger drove past ; Pinheiro and the helpers then got out of the truck and let down the tailgate. According to Pinheiro, just as he got the tailgate down Henninger and his com- panions appeared on the sidewalk nearby. Pinheiro testi- fied that Matos started yelling at Weaver and Howard, and that Quinn knocked to the ground a camera that Howard had been carrying on his shoulder . Pinheiro fur- ther testified that the camera bounced on the sidewalk, and that when he went to retrieve it Quinn stepped on the camera, crushing it, and then threw the film car- tridge toward Pinheiro . Pinheiro bent over to pick up the pieces of the camera and Quinn moved toward him, so that, according to Pinheiro , his head was almost touching Quinn's knees. Pinheiro then tried to straighten, but. something was behind him, preventing him from moving back. At that point Quinn, who had a lighted cigarette in his mouth , leaned toward Pinheiro . Pinheiro testified that he brushed the cigarette aside, without touching Quinn, and that Quinn then started to hit him. Henninger and Hart then joined in the attack on Pin- heiro, trying to pin his arms when he tried to hit back. Eventually , according to Pinheiro, his attackers succeed- ed in holding his arms, and at that point, while he was unable to move, he was hit over the head and on his 697 back and shoulders with some object he was unable to identify. Pinheiro started to bleed from the head wound, and was unable to see, but testified that he heard some- one say, "Okay, he's had enough," and also heard some- one say that the police were coming . It is undisputed that at that point the fight ended. Weavers corroborated Pinheiro's testimony that the fight started when the camera was grabbed from Howard and that Quinn, Henninger , and Hart then all started hitting Pinheiro . However, Weaver testified that he thought it was Henninger or Hart and Henninger who took the camera and that Henninger had the ciga- rette in his mouth , and that the object used to hit Pin- heiro in the head was a pipe. Weaver also testified that he was pretty sure that the truck used to transport the chairs that day was a yellow Ryder truck , and not one of the trucks owned by Oakwood, which were red. Again, the Respondent 's witnesses all presented a very different version of the incident from the account given by Pinheiro . The Respondent's witnesses testified that they followed the Oakwood truck in order to establish an ambulatory picket line, and that the fight occurred substantially as follows: when the truck arrived at the restaurant to unload the chairs it sideswiped a car, and then backed into the corner . Henninger pulled up and let Quinn, Matos, and Hart out of the car, and then went to find a parking place. While Henninger was walking back toward the truck and the others were standing near it, the camera fell. Quinn went to pick it up, and Pinheiro snatched it out of his hand. Then Pinheiro, who was holding the camera in his right hand with the strap wrapped around his hand , swiped at Quinn with the hand holding the camera. Quinn backed off, Pinheiro turned as if to walk away, and then Pinheiro suddenly wheeled back and swung the camera at Quinn's head. Quinn put up his left hand to block the blow, and the camera consequently hit his hand. At that point, Hen- ninger arrived on the scene. Pinheiro grabbed him by the jacket, hitting him repeatedly in the forehead with the camera. Henninger looked down , saw a 1-gallon gasoline can on the ground, and hit Pinheiro across the head with it. , Pinheiro started bleeding and fell back, and Hart jumped on his back. Pinheiro then started hitting Hart with the camera, while Henninger and Quinn tried to pin Pinheiro's arms. Eventually Pinheiro broke the camera over Hart's head, and the fight broke up. After the police arrived Pinheiro took a towel or rag he had been using to wipe his face and threw it to Matos, saying, "Come on you motherfuckers , you're not so tough, I can take you on," or words to that effect. It is undisputed that the police insisted that Pinheiro go to the hospital, and Pinheiro testified that he received 15 stitches in his scalp and 5 stitches on the bridge of his nose, and that he had "lots of contusions all over me." Pinheiro also testified that he had no recollection of throwing the towel at Matos, or of offering to renew the fight. Henninger and his companions told the police that Pinheiro had started the fight and that they wanted him 6 Although Howard was subpoenaed by the General Counsel, he failed to appear 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to be arrested, but the police took Henninger, Hart, Quinn, and Matos into custody instead. Henninger, Hart, and Quinn were all charged with and subsequently adju- dicated guilty of simple and aggravated assault in state criminal proceedings. It is undisputed that Matos was not involved in the fight and that he was not charged with any criminal conduct. Henninger and Hart testified that they were injured in the fight and consequently sought and received medical treatment. However, the medical records in evidence show only that they complained of injury, and are of no probative value on the issue of how those alleged injuries were received. For the reasons stated above, I credit Pinheiro. Weaver, although he appeared to testify candidly, did not exhibit good recall, and I therefore do not credit him to the extent that his testimony was inconsistent with that of Barry Pinheiro. Also for the reasons given above, I specifically discredit Henninger, Hart, Quinn, and Matos to the extent that their testimony conflicted with Pinheiro's. In this regard, I emphasize that I was far from favorably impressed by the demeanor of the Re- spondent's witnesses, and that in discrediting Henninger, Hart, and Quinn, I do not rely on their criminal convic- tions, particularly inasmuch as they still had a right of appeal as of the date of the instant hearing. In light of these credibility resolutions, I find that Henninger, Hart, and Quinn, in the presence of employees Weaver and Howard and without provocation, assaulted Barry Pin- heiro. C. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The agency status of Henninger, Hart, and Quinn The complaint alleges and the answer denies that Hen- ninger, Hart, and Quinn were, at material times, agents of the Respondent. As discussed above, Henninger and Hart were employed full time by the Respondent as or- ganizers, and were in charge of the picketing at Oak- wood. In these circumstances it is clear that they were in a position to act and speak for the Respondent with re- spect to the picketing and attendant situations or inci- dents. I therefore find that they were agents of the Re- spondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act and that in consequence their conduct is attributable to the Respondent. Inasmuch as Quinn, at least with respect to the inci- dent on January 28 , acted in the presence of and in accord with Henninger and Hart, I also find that his ac- tions were attributable to the Respondent . I therefore find it unnecessary to determine whether Quinn was also an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of the Act. 2. The alleged mass picketing, blocking of entries, jostling of supervisors, and threats As discussed above, I have found that on January 24 a mass of picketers impeded Barry and Jack Pinheiros' en- trance to Oakwood's premises, jostled them, indicated to Barry Pinheiro that his car might be damaged, and threatened Jack Pinheiro that he would be "sorry" if he did not sign the contract. As also discussed above, I have found that on January 26 the picketers indicated to Jack Pinheiro that his car would be damaged if he parked it in the Oakwood lot. I have also found that Henninger and Hart were present on the picket line at these times, and that insofar as these events concerned Barry Pinheiro they were witnessed by George Cokes, an employee, and, insofar as they concerned Jack Pinheiro, they were witnessed by a number of the Company's regular em- ployees. It is well established that mass picketing and obstruct- ing of entrances violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.7 Further, as the Board has noted, 8 It has long been settled that restraint and coercion directed against supervisors and managerial person- nel under circumstances where the conduct became or was sure to become known to the Company's striking or nonstriking employees constitutes re- straint and coercion of employees in the exercise of their statutory rights within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I therefore find that the mass picketing, the jostling of the Pinheiros, and the blocking of their access to the plant are attributable to the Respondent and that by that conduct the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I further find that the comments made on January 24 about Barry Pinheiro's car and that Jack Pinheiro would be "sorry" and the comment to Jack Pinheiro later in the week about the possibility that "something could happen" to his car were unlawful threats. Although these comments might be considered innocuous in them- selves, in the context in which they were made they were clearly threats of harm to the Pinheiros' property and/or persons, and I so find. I therefore further find that the threats violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. It is also well settled that a union acts unlawfully when it restrains or coerces third parties by conduct such as that directed against Schrader.9 I therefore find that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by blocking Schrader's access to the plant, jostling him, and indicating to him that his truck was not safe, and by Hart's threat to him when Schrader went to cut the lock on the gate to the parking lot. With respect to the tow truck incident and the at- tempts of customers to enter the plant, although it is per- fectly lawful for picketers to ask third parties to honor a picket line,' 0 the conduct of the Respondent here went far beyond that which "is merely incidental to primary picketing activity which is permitted under the Act.""" Maywood Plant of Grede Plastics, 235 NLRB 363 (1978). a Mine Workers District 20 (Harbert Construction), 192 NLRB 565, 566 (1971) Accord. Service Employees Local 254 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), 218 NLRB 1399, 1400-01 (1975) 9 See, e g., Longshoremen ILA Local 1291 (Trailer Marine), 266 NLRB 1204, 1207 (1983); Iron Workers Local 455 (Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp.), 243 NLRB 340, 346 (1979) to Interstate Cigar Co, 256 NLRB 496, 498 at fn. 1 (1981) 11 Interstate Cigar Co., supra TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115 (OAKWOOD CHAIR) 699 Inasmuch as I have credited the Pinheiros' testimony that the picketers blocked the entrance to the parking lot when the tow truck driver initially attempted to turn into the lot, and that when customers approached the premises the picketers blocked the entrance, shouted at them, and called them "scabs," I further find that this conduct violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). 3. The alleged assault on Barry Pinheiro Having found that Henninger, Hart, and Quinn assault- ed ]Barry Pinheiro on January 28 in the presence of Weaver and Howard, and that the conduct of the three union representatives is attributable to the Respondent, I further find that this conduct would reasonably tend to restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, and therefore violat- ed Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. On the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc. is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Teamsters Local 115 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in mass picketing, jostling supervisors of the Employer, blocking the ingress and egress to the Employer's plant of said supervisors, threatening supervi- sors with bodily harm and with property damage, block- ing the ingress to the Employer's facility of third parties, threatening such third parties with property damage and bodily harm, and assaulting a supervisor of the Employ- er, all in the presence of employees, the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in var- ious unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and to post the usual notice. In addition, inas- much as Oakwood is no longer in business, I shall rec- ommend that the Respondent be ordered to mail copies of the notice to all persons employed by Oakwood at the time of the unfair labor practices found. Finally, it is noteworthy that in several other cases this Respondent has been found to have committed unfair labor practices similar to those found herein. Thus, in Philadelphia Ambulance Service, 238 NLRB 1070 (1978), the Respondent was found to have unlawfully threatened physical violence against employees, damaged and threatened damage to property, and hindered ingress and egress to employers' premises. More recently, in Team- sters Local 115 (Carol Lines), Case 4-CB-4649, in which the administrative law judge's decision issued March 19, 1984, the Respondent was found to have engaged in un- lawful blocking of egress. I recognize that no exceptions were filed to the judge's decision in Carol Lines. However, in Operating Engineers Local 12 (Associated Engineers), 270 NLRB 1172 (1984), the Board held that an administrative law judge's deci- sion to which no exceptions are filed may be considered by the Board in determining whether a respondent had demonstrated a proclivity to violate the Act. In light of that decision I find that the Respondent has demonstrat- ed a proclivity to violate the Act. I shall therefore rec- ommend a broad cease-and-desist order in this case.12 On the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the following recom- mended13 ORDER The Respondent, Teamsters Local 115 a/w Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehou- semen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Engaging in mass picketing, jostling supervisors of Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc., or any other employer, blocking the ingress and egress to Oakwood Chair's plant of supervisors, threatening supervisors with bodily harm and with property damage, blocking the in- gress to the Oakwood Chair facility of third parties, threatening such third parties with property damage and bodily harm, and assaulting supervisors. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing em- ployees of Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc., or any other employer, in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its office and meeting halls in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."14 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. 12 Another case in which the Respondent was found by an administra- tive law judge to have committed numerous unfair labor practices in con- nection with a picket line is Teamsters Local 115 (Gross Metal Products), Cases 4-CB-4845 and 4-CB-4845-2, in which the judge's decision issued on January 22, 1985 However, I am advised by the Board's Office of the Executive Secretary that exceptions have been filed to that decision In- asmuch as that case is thus pending before the Board, I have not consid- ered it in determining that a broad order is appropriate in the instant case. 13 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses. 14 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al 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 " 700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Sign and mail copies of the notice to all persons who were employed by Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc. as of January 24, 1983. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of Oak- wood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc., or any other em- ployer, by engaging in mass picketing , jostling supervi- sors, blocking the ingress and egress to Oakwood Chair's plant of supervisors, threatening supervisors with bodily harm and with property damage. blocking the ingress to the Oakwood Chair facility of third parties , threatening such third parties with property damage and bodily harm, or assaulting supervisors. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc., or any other employer, in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed them by Section 7 of the Act. The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115 A/W INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELP- ERS OF AMERICA