International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 959 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

STAGE EMPLOYEES
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
(RKO General , Inc., WOR-TV Division) and Adri-
an Penner . Case 2-CB-5858
April 19, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On December 2, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Joseph I. Nachman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached 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,' as modified herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
Respondent, by instituting disciplinary proceedings
against its members employed by RKO General,
Inc., WOR-TV Division, hereafter called WOR, be-
cause they refused to honor its picket line at WOR,
coerced and restrained these individuals in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act, and thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act. However, we do not base our conclusion on a
finding that Respondent's picket line violated the
Act, as did the Administrative Law Judge, as that is
not the case for the reasons set forth hereafter. As
more fully noted in the attached Administrative Law
Judge's Decision, a jurisdictional dispute developed
wherein the employer assigned certain work to its
engineers who were members of IATSE, the Respon-
dent herein. IATSE Locals 1, 52, 644, and 771
claimed parts of the work. IATSE thereafter made a
determination that the work belonged to Locals 52,
644, and 771 and directed the engineers to comply
with that directive. The engineers were also advised
that IATSE had authorized a picket line at the WOR
facilities and they were to honor that picket line. The
picketing by Locals 52, 644, and 771 began on Feb-
ruary 26, 1975,2 and continued until it was enjoined
by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
On March 24, John C. Hall, Jr., an IATSE mem-
1 In Appendix A of the Decision the inadvertent misspellings of two
names are hereby corrected from Juan Berrera to Juan Barrera and from
Augustus McAllister to August MacAllister.
2 All events herein occurred in 1975.
959
ber, filed union disciplinary charges against the 121
engineers employed by WOR who had crossed the
aforesaid picket line. Thereafter, IATSE served no-
tice upon each of these individuals and directed each
of them to appear before an IATSE trial committee
on specified dates and defend themselves against the
charges. Respondent has postponed action on these
charges until the final disposition of this proceeding.
WOR filed 8(b)(4)(D) charges against the picket-
ing Unions and the Board, following a hearing pur-
suant to Section 10(k) of the Act, issued a Decision
and Determination of Dispute on August 18, 1975,
awarding the disputed work to the engineers repre-
sented by IATSE, and holding that Locals 52, 644,
and 771 were not entitled by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) to force or require WOR to assign
the disputed work to employees represented by said
locals, rather than engineers represented by IATSE.3
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act makes it an unfair
labor practice for a union to "restrain or coerce .. .
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in sec-
tion 7." Under Section 7, employees are guaranteed
both the right to engage in concerted activities and
the "right to refrain from any or all such activities
... ." However, the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A)
provides that the section "shall not impair the right
of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with
respect to the acquisition . . . of membership there-
in."
It is now well established that the application of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) to the enforcement of union rules
requires a dual approach. External enforcement of a
union rule by attempting to affect a member's em-
ployment status is proscribed by Section 8(b)(1)(A);
on the other hand, since Congress did not propose to
interfere with internal affairs, a union rule ordinarily
is enforceable against a member by internal means-
i.e., expulsion or fine-without running afoul of the
section.'
A union's right to employ internal sanctions, how-
ever, is subject to a basic exception:
... if the [union] rule invades or frustrates an
overriding policy of the labor laws the rule may
not be enforced, even by fine or expulsion, with-
out violating § 8(b)(l).5
Thus, it is well settled that a union's attempt to fine
or expel a member for filing unfair labor practice
charges violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) since it frustrates
3 Stage Employees Local One, IA TSE, AFL-CIO, Theatrical Protective
Union, el aL (RKO General, WOR-TV Division), 219 NLRB 1165 (1975). We
have been administratively advised that an 8(b)(4)(D) complaint which is-
sued subsequent to this determination has been settled in view of the Re-
spondent Union's compliance with that determination.
4Scofield v. N.LR.B., 394 U.S. 423, 429 (1969); N. L. R. B. v. Allis-Chal-
mers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175, 195 (1967).
5 Scofield, supra, 394 U.S. at 429.
223 NLRB No. 142
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Congress' basic policy of free and uncoerced access
to the Board and the provisions of the Act .6
Section 8(b)(IXA) is also violated when a union
fines members for refusing to honor a lawful picket
line established by a sister union where the union's
collective-bargaining agreement contains a valid no-
strike clause.' In such circumstances , the union's ac-
tion frustrates the Act's fundamental policy of adher-
ing to collective-bargaining agreements and resolving
labor disputes without resort to work stoppages. A
union has also been found to have violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) when it brought charges against members
who refused to participate in conduct subsequently
found by the Board to be unlawful.' In sum, Section
8(b)(1)(A) "leaves a union free to enforce a properly
adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union inter-
est, impairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the
labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against union
members who are free to leave the union and escape
the rule." 9
With the above principles in mind, the validity of
Respondent 's discipline of its engineer members em-
ployed by WOR turns on our view of the picket line
herein and the meaning of our Decision and Deter-
mination of Dispute in the 10(k) proceeding. In dis-
cussing the relationship between a 10(k) and an
8(b)(4)(D) proceeding, the Supreme Court has stat-
ed:
[T]he impact of the § 10(k) decision is felt in the
§8(b)(4)(D) hearing because for all practical
purposes the Board's award determines who will
prevail in the unfair labor practice proceeding.
If the picketing union persists in its conduct de-
spite a § 10(k) decision against it, a §8(b)(4)(D)
complaint issues and the union will likely be
found guilty of an unfair labor practice and be
ordered to cease and desist.1°
In the instant case the only reason Respondent has
not been found guilty of violating Section 8(b)(4)(D)
is because it has apparently ceased its picket line ac-
tion and is complying with our Decision and Deter-
mination of Dispute." However, although the picket
line itself has not been declared illegal, the Board has
determined solely on the basis of that picket line that
the three constituent locals of Respondent were not
entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act to force or require WOR to assign the
disputed work to employees represented by them.
Our Section 10(k) proceeding would be a nullity and
our decision herein incongruent if the Respondent
can discipline its engineer members for performing
work which we have determined is theirs. Even if the
decision to discipline the employees was originally
continuing its efforts to discipline the engineers after
a court issued an injunction against it and the Board
made a determination of dispute against the claim.12
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the
Union's continuing efforts to discipline those mem-
bers who failed to observe the picket line impairs
national labor policy as its conduct tends to under-
mine the Board's policy against such picket lines and
the Board's Section 10(k) proceedings. Accordingly,
we conclude that the Respondent's institution of
union disciplinary proceedings violates Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, International Alliance of
Theatrical Stage Employees, New York, New York,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
6 N. L. R. B. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers [United
States Lines Co.], 391 U.S . 418 (1968).
t Local 12419, International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of
America (National Grinding Wheel Company, Inc.), 176 NLRB 628 (1969).
See also Verville v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers. et at., 520 F.2d 615 (C.A. 6, 1975) (sympathy strike in violation of
no-strike clause in collective-bargaining agreement ); Local 1104, Communi-
cations Workers of America, AFL-CIO [New York Telephone Company] v.
N.L.R.B., 520 F.2d 411 (C.A. 2, 1975) ( illegal secondary boycott).
8 N. L. R. B. v. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 1170
[Rochester Telephone Corp.], 474 F.2d 778 (C.A. 2, 1972) (Sec. 8(d) and
8(b)(3) ).
9 Scofield, supra, 394 U.S. at 430.
10 N.L.R. B. v. Plasterers Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers' and
Cement Masons' International Association , AFL-CIO [Texas State Tile &
Terrazzo Co.], 404 U.S. 116, 126-127 (1971), reversing 440 F.2d 174 (C.A.
D.C. 1970), denying enforcement of 172 NLRB 565 (1968).
11 In this regard Respondent in its answer admitted that Respondent au-
thorized the picketing of WOR, Respondent directed the engineers to honor
the picket line, and by such directive Respondent attempted to induce the
engineers not to perform services for WOR and to force the assignment of
the disputed work to employees who are members of Locals 52, 644, and
771, rather than to the engineers employed by WOR.
12 Retail Clerks Union, Local 1179, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO (Alpha Beta-Acme Markets), 211 NLRB 84 (1974), enfd. 526 F.2d
142 (C.A. 9, 1975).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding heard before me at New York, New York, on
October 21,' with all parties duly represented, involves a
complaint 2 pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National La-
1 This and all dates hereafter mentioned are 1975.
taken in good faith, Respondent continued and is 2 Issued July 11, on a charge filed on May I, and served on May 2.
STAGE EMPLOYEES 961
bor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), which al-
leges in substance, that on March 14, based on charges
preferred by John C. Hall, Jr., a member of International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (herein IATSE or
Respondent), against approximately 121 of his fellow
members of IATSE, the latter ordered said members to
stand trial before the trial committee of IATSE on charges
of violating certain provisions of its constitution, and that
by said conduct Respondent restrained and coerced em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. By
answer duly filed and amended at the hearing, Respondent
admitted certain allegations of the complaint, but denied
the commission of any unfair labor practice. For reasons
hereafter more fully stated, I find the allegations of the
complaint sustained by the evidence, and recommend an
appropriate remedial order.
At the hearing all parties were afforded full opportunity
to introduce relevant and material evidence, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record,
and to submit briefs. Discussion of the legal issues present-
ed by this record was quite extensive at the hearing, and
the same is included in the transcript, and has been duly
considered. A brief submitted by Respondent has also
been duly considered.3 Upon the pleadings, stipulation of
counsel, the evidence, and the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT 4
There is no dispute regarding the facts, and the following
findings are based on the allegations of the complaint
which are admitted by the answer as modified at the hear-
ing.
RKO General operates a radio and television broadcast-
ing station in New York City, known as Station WOR, and
for that purpose employs various personnel who are mem-
bers of or represented by IATSE, and IATSE or one of its
constituent locals bargains with RKO on behalf of said
employees.5 Among the employees who work for RKO is a
3 At the hearing , both General Counsel and the Charging Party stated
that each would file a brief . Subsequently each party advised me by letter
that they felt the case was adequately presented by the record , and that they
would not file briefs.
° The complaint alleges and the answer admits facts which establish that
RKO General , Inc., WOR-TV Division ( herein RKO or WOR-TV), is en-
gaged in commerce or an enterprise affecting commerce within the meaning
of the Act, and over which the Board would assert jurisdiction . I find those
facts to be as pleaded . The complaint also alleges that R&T Division of
IATSE, composed of a group of engineers employed by WOR-TV, who are
members of IATSE, and for whom IATSE bargains with WOR-TV, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The an-
swer denies this allegation , claiming that because R&T is a division of
IATSE it has no status as an organization independent of IATSE, and
because IATSE does the bargaining for the engineers employed by WOR-
TV, the R&T Division does not exist for the purpose of "dealing with em-
ployers concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment , or conditions of work ," within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act. I find it unnecessary to decide the question. It being admitted that
IATSE is a labor organization, restraint or coercion of employees by it,
whether directed to employees who are or are not members of a labor orga-
nization , establishes the unfair labor practice proscribed by Section
8(b)(1)(A)•
5It appears that Locals 1, 52, 644, and 771, have contracts with RKO
group of engineers who are members of IATSE. This group
is at times known as "R&T Division." For purposes of
collective bargaining, a committee selected by the engi-
neers , together with officials of IATSE, meets with repre-
sentatives of RKO, and bargains out a contract fixing the
terms and conditions of employment of the engineers. The
last such contract was executed March 16, 1972, effective
from that date until March 15, 1974, and thereafter from
year to year, absent prescribed notice .6
Early in 1975, a dispute developed with respect to the
operation of video tape cameras for new gatherings, which
work RKO had assigned to the engineers, and which was
claimed in parts by IATSE Locals 1, 52, 644, and 771. On
February 24, Walter Diehl, president of IATSE, notified
the engineers employed by RKO that, notwithstanding the
assignments made by RKO, IATSE had determined that
Locals 52, 644, and 771 had jurisdiction over the disputed
work and that its engineer members were to comply with
that directive. On February 26, Diehl advised its engineer
members employed by RKO that IATSE had authorized
the picketing of the facilities of WOR and that, if such
picketing occurred, its engineer members were to honor
that picket line.
Beginning on or about February 25, Locals 52, 644, and
771, with the authorization of IATSE, commenced picket-
ing the facilities of WOR. This picketing continued until it
was enjoined by order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. Respondent's an-
swer, as amended, admits that (1) the purpose of the afore-
said picketing was to force the assignment of the disputed
work to employees who are members of or represented by
IATSE Locals 52, 644, or 771; (2) notwithstanding the di-
rective by IATSE to the engineers that they honor the pick-
et lines established by Locals 52, 644, and 771, said engi-
neers refused to do so, and continued to work during the
picketing; (3) on March 24, John C. Hall, Jr., a member of
IATSE, filed disciplinary charges, pursuant to the constitu-
tion and bylaws of IATSE, against those engineers em-
ployed by WOR, and who had crossed the aforesaid picket
line, charging them with violating article 7, section 10; arti-
cle 16, section 1; and article 2, section 7 of the aforesaid
constitution and bylaws; and (4) upon the filing of said
charges, IATSE served notice upon each of the individuals
so charged, directing them to each appear before a trial
committee of IATSE on specified dates, and defend them-
selves against said charges. Respondent admits that action
on the aforesaid charges has been postponed until the final
disposition of this proceeding.
The evidence shows that, pursuant to charges filed by
RKO against IATSE, Locals 1, 52, 644, and 771, alleging a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, the Board, fol-
lowing a hearing pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, is-
sued its Decision and Determination of Dispute on August
18,.1975, awarding the disputed work to the engineers rep-
resented by IATSE, but not to IATSE or its members, and
covering such employees.
6 Apparently no notice was given in March 1974 or 1975. All parties agree
that the contract was in effect at all times material herein.
7 The parties stipulated that G.C . Exh. 6 is a list of the engineers against
whom such charges were preferred. The list contains 121 names.
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
held that Locals 52, 644, and 771 8 were not entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) to force or require
RKO to assign the disputed work to employees represented
by said locals , rather than to engineers represented by
IATSE. See 219 NLRB 1165 (1975).9
Contentions and Conclusions
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act makes it an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization or its agents
.. to restrain or coerce . . . employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in section 7: Provided
That this paragraph shall not impair the right of a
labor organization to prescribe its own rules with re-
spect to the acquisition or retention of membership
therein; .. .
Among the Section 7 rights guaranteed to employees is the
right to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, concerted
activities , such as strikes or picketing , or to cross or refuse
to cross a picket line.
Although the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Allis-Chal-
mers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175 (1967), held that disciplinary
fines imposed upon union members for refusing to honor a
picket line were not the restraint and coercion proscribed
by Section 8(b)(1)(A), the Supreme Court in subsequent
cases held such fines to be violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A), if
they impaired or ran counter to law or the national labor
policy. N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuild-
ing Workers [United States Lines Co.], 391 U.S. 418 (1968);
Scofield v. N.L.R.B., 394 U.S. 423 (1969). In Marine Work-
ers, supra, the public policy to be protected was the right of
individual employees to have access to the Board . In Local
12419, Mine Workers (National Grinding Wheel Company,
Inc.), 176 NLRB 628 (1969), the principle of Marine Work-
ers was applied to a strike in breach of a contractual no-
strike provision; and in Communications Workers of Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, Local 1170 (Rochester Telephone Corp.), 194
NLRB 872 (1972), the principle was applied to attempt
modifications of a contract without compliance with the
requirements of Section 8(d) of the Act.
Based on the aforementioned holdings , the validity of
Respondent 's attempt to discipline its members employed
by RKO as engineers turns on the legality of the picket
lines the engineers are charged with refusing to honor. That
° The proceeding was dismissed insofar as it related to Local I.
Although not a party to this proceeding , Local 52 filed a motion that I
withhold my decision in the instant case until the final disposition of the
8(bx4XD) proceeding . The motion was denied on the ground that whatever
the ultimate disposition of the 8(b)(4)(D) proceeding may be , it would have
no bearing on the instant case . Apparently, the Locals involved in the 10(k)
proceeding have failed to notify the Regional Director of Region 2. as the
Board directed them to in the Decision and Determination of Dispute,that
they would refrain from forcing or requiring RKO. by proscribed means, to
assign the work in dispute to employees represented by said locals, rather
than to the engineers represented by IATSE, and that by reason of such
failure the General Counsel has issued a 8(bX4XD ) complaint, based on the
original charge . Locals 644 and 771, also not parties to this proceeding, have
by letter to me dated November 17, 1975, suggested that this proceeding is
jurisdictionally defective because they are not parties duly served with no-
tice . Although I do not regard this as raising any question before me. the
suggestion appears to be lacking in merit.
the picket lines involved contravened Section 8(b)(4)(D)
and were, for that reason, unlawful is clear. In its Decision
and Determination of Dispute, the Board found, for rea-
sons there explicated, that the work involved was work be-
longing to the engineers , and that Locals 52, 644, or 771,
were not entitled, by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D), to engage in conduct designed to force assign-
ment of the work to the latter. And it being admitted by
the answer as modified at the hearing, that Respondent
authorized the picketing of RKO, directed the engineers to
honor the picket lines, that such directive by Respondent
constituted an inducement of the engineers not to perform
services for RKO and was to force the assignment of the
disputed work to employees who are members of Locals
52, 644, and 771, rather than to the engineers employed by
RKO, the violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) by those Locals is
complete . Being in violation of law, the picketing lines were
unprotected, and the election of the engineers to cross
those picket lines cannot be made the basis of disciplinary
action that does not, on the authority of the above-cited
cases, run afoul of the proscription of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of
the Act. Accordingly, when IATSE took over the prosecu-
tion of the disciplinary charges and ordered the engineers
listed in Schedule A (attached) to defend their action be-
fore its trial committee, it violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act. I so find and conclude.10
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire re-
cord in the case, I state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. RKO is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. IATSE, the only Respondent herein, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Picketing of RKO, authorized by IATSE, was for a
proscribed object and hence violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act.
4. By instituting disciplinary proceeding against its
members employed by RKO as engineers because they re-
fused to honor the aforesaid picket lines, IATSE coerced
and restrained the aforesaid engineers in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, and there-
by violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following rec-
ommended:
10 Respondent's contention that its conduct here is protected by the provi-
so to Sec. 8(b)(I)(A), giving it the right to prescribe its own rules relating to
the acquisition and retention of membership, I rind to be without merit.
Joliet Contractors Association , et a!. v . N.L.R.B., 202 F.2d 606 (C.A. 7).
STAGE EMPLOYEES
ORDER 1 1
Respondent, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees, New York, New York, its officers, agents, and
representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, by institut-
ing, prosecuting , bringing to trial , or in any manner giving
effect to any notice of disciplinary proceedings issued to
any person listed in Appendix A attached.
(b) In any like or related manner, restrain or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Forthwith notify, in writing, each individual listed in
Appendix A attached, that the notice of disciplinary action
which it heretofore gave said individual is no longer of any
effect, and that it will take no action to enforce the same.
(b) Post in conspicuous places at its business office and
all places where notices to its members are customarily
posted, copies of the notice attached marked "Appendix
B." 12 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 2, after being signed by a duly
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Promptly after receipt of copies of the aforesaid no-
tice from the aforesaid Regional Director, return to said
Regional Director such number of signed copies of said
notice as said director may request for posting by RKO at
its premises in New York, New York, said employer being
willing, at all places where said employer posts notices to
its employees.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith.
11 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.
12 In the event 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."
APPENDIX A
Robert Albrecht John Herbst
Glen Alston Andres Hernandez
Arthur F. Altro
Ralph Aluise
Edward Anderson
C. Albert Aprile
Stephen Aronson
William Azzolini
Charles Baker
George Balle
Robert Barkey
Matthew B. Bayles
Edward Beaty
Barney Beck
Juan Berrera
Carl Berry
Arthur Bompane
Elga Brown
Michael Brown
Robert Cambreleng
William Carey
John Carney
Gregory Centola
Eugene Clark
Howard Cohen
John E. Conklin, Jr.
Daniel Conover
Alejandro Couzo
Willoughby Dacosta
Evan Dakes or Drakes
Emanuel De Carlo
Robert De Chiara
Ellis Domeseck
Matthew J. Dowd
Richard Effman
Frank Ennis
Rubin Erejomovich
John Fejas
Orville Ferguson
Michael Ferriola
Joseph Fioravanti
Fred Fishman
Clement Florio
John Fogal
Roy Fortner
Anthony Galano
John P. Gallagher
John Garlinger
James Gavigan
Herbert Gillies
Joseph Ginise
Ronald Girellini
Enrique Gomez
Humberto Gonozalez
James Goode
Robert Goodman
John Grant
Arthur Gress
Donald Hale
Roland Harper
Robert Hennessy
Joseph Hoffman
John Hogan
Henry Jasinski
Joseph J. Kasper
John Keane
Patrick Kelly
Edward Knapp
Quincy Knight
William Krause
Robert Lawery
Harry Leon
William Levine
Cliff Lovett
Barry Luchkowac
Joseph Maguire
Donald Manns
Arthur Marko
Augustus Mc Allister
Peter McDonough
Kenneth McHugh
James McInerney
F. Donald McLean
Arnold Mintz
Gary J. Mintz
Samuel Morse
Earl Neely
Robert Norris
James Quodomine
Adrian Penner
William Petryna
George Planell
Angelo Polizzano
William Povilaitis
George Riley
Paul Rossi
William Sakai
Edward Scatterday
Alfred Schaffer
William Schlegel
Michael Sciotto
Mario Sfogliano
David Shelton
Ronald Simms
Charles Skidmore
Michael Sobol
Herbert Squire, Jr.
Anthony Tatti
Lawrence J. Tighe
John Torrado
Rudy A. Traylor
Herbert Turner
Peter Vaas
John Walsh
Stanley Weinger
Kenneth Williams
Bernard L. Wolf
William Woodcock
Edmund Zajac
963
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, it has been decided that we, IATSE,
violated the National Labor Relations Act, and we have
been ordered by the National Labor Relations Board to
post this Notice. We will fully carry out the Order of the
Board, and abide by the following:
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing
To engage in activities together for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To refrain from any of such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with our
members in the exercise of those rights.
WE WILL NOT institute, prosecute, bring to trial, or in
any other manner enforce or give effect to, any notice
of disciplinary proceeding which we may have issued
to any member listed in Appendix A of the Board's
decision, a copy of which is attached, because said
member may have failed or refused to honor a picket
which we authorized be maintained at the New York
premises of RKO General.
WE WILL forthwith notify, in writing, each individual
named in the aforesaid Appendix A, that the notice of
disciplinary action heretofore given any such individu-
al is withdrawn and is no longer of any effect, and that
we will hereafter take no action to enforce the same.
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EM.
PLOYEES