International Hod Carriers, Etc., Local 916

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, ETC., LOCAL 916 565
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 4459
Federal Building, 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri, Telephone No. Main
1-8100, Extension 2142, if they have any question concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions.
International Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers
Union of America , Local 916, AFL-CIO and Owen Langston.
Case No. 14-CB-998. December 23, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 20, 1962, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs. The Respondent filed no exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications.
THE REMEDY
The Trial Examiner recommended, inter alia, that the Board order
the Respondent to reimburse the victims of Respondent's assault for
medical expenditures incurred in the treatment of their injuries, but
declined to recommend that the nonstriking employees be made whole
by Respondent for the loss of pay they incurred during the period they
remained away from work because of fear generated by the Respond-
ent's illegal conduct. For the reasons set out in International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 513, and its agent, Lester Straughan
(Long Construction Company), 145 NLRB 554, issued this day, we
concur in the Trial Examiner's recommendation that back-pay not
be awarded in this case, and we further find it inappropriate for like
reasons to award reimbursement for medical expenses resulting from
Respondent's illegal activity. We therefore do not adopt the Trial
Examiner's recommendation relating to the medical expense remedy.
145 NLRB No. 58.
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
with the following modifications :
Substitute for the first paragraph therein the following paragraph :
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, its
officers, agents, and representatives, successors, and assigns, shall :
The notice is hereby amended by deleting the paragraph which
begins "WE WILL reimburse and pay Lester Utley, etc...."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed May 14, 1962, by Owen Langston alleging that International
Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local 916, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Respondent or the Union, had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, a representative of the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel
and the Board, issued a complaint dated August 1, 1962, against the Union, alleging
violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
The complaint in substance alleged that on or about May 8 and 9 , 1962, Respon-
dent threatened employees with physical violence and engaged in various acts of
physical violence against employees in connection with their failure and refusal to
join in a strike against the Charging Party.
In its answer , besides denying the commission of any unfair labor practices,
Respondent filed a counterclaim against the Charging Party alleging the loss of
initiation fees and union dues by failure of the Charging Party's refusal to bargain
with the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. At the hearing,
upon the motion of the General Counsel and the Charging Party, Respondent's
counterclaim was stricken and no evidence was admitted in connection therewith.
Pursuant to notice the matter was heard before Trial Examiner Eugene E . Dixon at
Ellington, Missouri , from October 2 to 5, 1962, with all parties represented by
counsel. Briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Charging Party
but the Respondent, having received a 15-day extension in which to file its brief
and failing to get additional time upon request, indicated that it would not file a
brief.
After filing his brief the General Counsel moved to delete the second and third
paragraphs on page 19 thereof which motion is hereby granted. The parties also by
stipulation moved to correct the record in certain respects which corrections are
made a part of the record herein and are granted.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS INVOLVED
At all times material, the Charging Party, Owen Langston, has been an Arkansas
contractor with his home office and principal place of business located in Salem,
Arkansas, where he is engaged in various pursuits including land-clearing work.
On February 28, 1962, he contracted with the Irby Construction Company of
Jackson, Mississippi, to clear a right-of-way in Missouri for a powerline Irby was
building for the Missouri-Arkansas Power Cooperative This cooperative gets its
power from the Bull Shoals Dam in Arkansas The powerline in question was to
become part of the cooperative's distribution "grid" to cooperative users located
in the State of Missouri. During 1962 Irby paid Langston more than $50,000 in
partial payment for the work he performed in 1962 under this contract. I find
that Langston is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, ETC., LOCAL 916 567
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers Union of America,
Local 916, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As the Charging Party observes in its brief, "This is a simple case. A group of
nonstriking workers was brutally assaulted for having exercised their right to refrain
from joining a strike, and the only issue is the basic factual one of whether or not
the Respondent Union is responsible for the violence and threats of violence."
Although the record is relatively long and involves numerous situations incidental
to and augmentative of the main issue only a few facts to set the scene and back-
ground are necessary to an understanding and treatment of the main issue.
On April 30, 1962, Owen Langston began clearing a right-of-way for an electric
powerline near Ellington, Missouri. To do this work he was using two crews of
men, one recruited from his home base of operations in Arkansas and other places
than Ellington and the other recruited in and around Ellington by William Larkin
who was placed in charge of it. When he hired the men for his crew, Larkin told
them that if the job went union they would get more money than their hiring rate.
On this basis, Larkin was able to get most of the members of his crew to join the
Union within a few days after the job started.
On May 4 the Union's president and business agent, Woodrow Wilson, and its
financial secretary and assistant business agent, James Keeble, made a personal
demand of Langston for recognition of the Union as the bargaining agent of his
employees' and informed Langston he was going to have to pay the men more
money. Langston refused to recognize the Union and indicated he could not afford
to pay more. Wilson stated he was going to find the Arkansas crew and stop it
from working Thereupon the union people started toward the area where the
Arkansas crew was working and Utley and Langston followed them. There,
another conversation took place between Langston and the union representatives,
a repetition of the first conversation. Then the union people got back on their truck
and went to where Larkin's crew was working. There, they told Larkin to call in
his crew which he immediately did. When the men quit working, one of the crew,
Freddy Pyrtle, was given a picket sign and began picketing as a paid picket. Ac-
cording to the undenied and credited testimony of Cox, Wilson also told the men
that he would bring in some other men to do the picketing the following week.
On the morning of May 9 as the truck hauling the Arkansas crew left Ellington
going north on Highway 21 to transport the men to work, four or five carloads of
men, members of the striking Ellington crew, which had been parked at the roadside,
pulled in behind the truck. The last of these cars carried Pyrtle and Cox. Behind
them came Langston and Utley in Utley's car. Highway 21 is a twisting, curving
road 2 and Langston soon lost sight of his truck. About 3 miles north of Ellington
on Highway 21 there is a roadside park alongside the highway, to the right as one
goes north. Highway 21 curves to the left as it approaches and goes by the park
and almost immediately curves again to the right. The park itself is located at an
elevation of 20 or 30 feet above the highway. As a result of this topography,
persons as they approach from the south can see directly ahead of them into the
roadside park. The park extends for two or three hundred feet along the highway.
It has a driveway entering the park off the highway at the south end going up
through the park close enough to the edge of the park for vehicles parked on it to
be seen from the highway and circling back down to the highway and entering it
again at the north end of the park.
According to Langston's credited testimony, before they reached the park he
observed a number of cars parked in the park drive in the north portion of the park,
facing south. In addition, he saw a number of men standing around in the park
near the automobiles. As they approached the park, the cars which were in front
of them slowed up to turn into the park drive requiring Utley, who was driving, to
1 Langston at the time was at a farm with Lester Utley, the job engineer, somewhere in
the general vicinity of the two crews The union representatives had gone to the Ellington
crew and had asked Larkin to direct them to Langston Larkin had sent his assistant,
Lyman Cox, on a borrowed truck to take the union officials to Langston which he did.
introducing them to Langston
2 This was apparent to me when I drove It at the request of the parties to take a view of
the road and its relation to a wayside park that plays a part in the events of May 9 as will
be seen.
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
come almost to a stop. When Langston saw these cars pull into the park driveway,
his curiosity was aroused and he watched closely as he and Utley drove by the park.
He identified Larkin, Keeble, and Wilson standing together close to one of the
automobiles. Langston was positive of his identification of Keeble and believed that
the other two men with Keeble were Wilson and Larkin, but he was not absolutely
sure. Utley, although he was driving the car, also observed these men and was
positive in his identification of all three .3
There were two roads off Highway 21 by which Langston's men could reach their
work area, one some distance north of the wayside park and the other a few hundred
feet south of it. Langston had instructed his men to use the road north of the park
because he thought it was the better road. Having seen what he did at the park
as they drove by, Langston concluded that it would not be safe for the Arkansas crew
to go into the woods that day. Accordingly, assuming that they were on ,the route
he had recommended, he and Utley drove north on Highway 21 to catch up with
and stop the truck. Having reached the recommended access road with no sight of the
truck, Langston concluded that the truck must have used the road immediately south
of the park. Thus, they turned back and retraced their route. When they got
back to the wayside park the last of the cars that had been there when they had passed
by a few minutes before was just pulling out of the park going south and turning into
the road that Langston assumed his Arkansas truck had taken. Then, as accurately
described in the Charging Party's brief: 4
Langston and Utley followed these cars along this road , all the way to where
the Arkansas crew was to work that day. At one point along this road, Utley
and Langston could see almost a half mile of road ahead of them. They saw
the truck and a long parade of cars following the truck. About 100 yards short
of the right-of-way at which the Arkansas crew was to work there is a clearing
and a farm house known as the Allen farm. By the time Utley and Langston had
reached this clearing , many cars were already parked in this clearing , on both
sides of the road which proceeded up toward the right-of-way. As Utley and
Langston drove through this group of cars, they both observed Keeble and Wilson
standing next to one of the cars. Utley also remembered seeing Larkin at the
same location (Tr. 86).3
Utley and Larkin proceeded up the road through the woods in low gear, as
far as they could go. This was a few yards short of the right^of-way, because
of a couple of cars were stopped in the road, blocking further movement of cars.
At this point Langston and Utley got out of their car and walked the remaining
distance to the right-of-way. While they were walking up, other men were also
walking up the road in front of them and behind them. Some of these men they
recognized as members of Larkin's crew. Others were strangers, two or three
of whom were carrying 3-foot lengths of green rubber hose. (Tr. 92.) When
they reached the right-of-way, they observed the truck parked parallel to the
right-of-way, facing south. Mr. Wetzel, the foreman of the Arkansas crew, had
alighted from the cab and come around to the back of the truck. The crew was
3 Although Larkin denied being there, it is interesting that Mr. Pyrtle, who was
willing to perjure himself for union cause, admitted that he had seen Larkin "over
where they had the fight" (Tr. 241). The aforementioned clearing is only about
100 yards from where the violence occurred.
3In an affidavit Utley gave the Board he quite accurately described Wilson's general
appearance except that he estimated his height as being about 5 feet 5 inches when in fact
Wilson is 3 or 4 inches taller He also overestimated Keeble's height by about 3 inches and
further described Keeble as being dark haired (almost black), dark-complected, and about
23 or 24 years old Actually, Keeble, although one of those in-between types, is more on
the blond side than the brunette. Also, in my opinion, he is considerably younger looking
than his age of 37. I do not view the discrepancies of Utley's descriptions as important
I agree with the General Counsel that the ability to describe another person's physical
appearance particularly after having seen him only once or twice briefly is often a matter
of articulateness and literary expression and does not necessarily reflect one's ability to
recognize that person when he is seen again As for Utley's estimates of height, I can
only conclude he is a poor judge of measurements and distances He described the wayside
park as being 400 to 500 feet from the highway I would be surprised to have a measure-
ment show that it was more than 150 feet from the highway
4 The only part of what then transpired that was denied was Pyrtle's testimony that he
engaged in no acts of violence As will appear from a reading of the record, Pyrtle is not
worthy of credence I do not credit his denial
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, ETC., LOCAL 916 569
still in the truck . About 30 men had already gathered at the scene , standing
in a group on the west side of the right -of-way, only a few feet from the truck.
Others were still walking up toward the right-of-way from the clearing. At
approximately the same time that Mr. Wetzel walked to the rear of the truck,
a large man, identity unknown , spoke to the members of the Arkansas crew.
He told all those who wanted to side with the union to get down and step over
with the group Jr. 95, 286 , 476, 619 ). No one accepted the invitation. Mr.
Wetzel then looked at his watch and stated to his crew that it was time to go to
work; that they should get their tools and start working . Wetzel then addressed
himself to the crowd of other men who were standing around and told them that
if they wanted to talk to the crew, they should wait until after working hours
to do so.
At this moment , another man who was standing near the back of the truck
asked "Where is the engineer?" Utley, who was standing with Langston, about
5 feet from the rear of the truck , spoke up and said, "I am the engineer." The
man who had asked for the engineer then said , "I want that son-of -a-bitch" and
leaped at the engineer (Tr. 619 ).4 At the same instant another man, standing
over toward the truck took out a gun, aimed it toward the truck and fired.
The firing of the gun caused Mr . Utley to glance toward the man who had just
fired the gun. At the same instant he was struck in the face and knocked
down. As soon as Utley was knocked to the ground , several men proceeded to
kick and stomp him, causing him to lose consciousness . Mr. Langston started to
push one of the men who was stomping Utley. At that moment another man,
standing about 3 feet from Langston , jerked out a pistol and threatened to shoot
Langston (Tr. 621 ). At that point Langston backed up , walked away back
down the road a few feet and walked off into the woods to escape . Simul-
taneously , or possibly a few seconds later, rocks began to be thrown at the
Arkansas crew, who were still on the truck. One man, Tommy Belcher, was
hit in the back of the head with a rock and knocked unconscious (Tr. 477-8).
When Belcher regained consciousness someone came up to the truck and .told him
to get off the truck. At about the same time someone grabbed hold of both
of his arms and helped him off the truck . Then , while they held his arms, he
was punched in the jaw. Jr. 479).
In the meantime , Homer Ward , another member of the Arkansas crew, was
struck on the arm by a rock thrown by Freddy Pyrtle, the union picket. Ward
observed Pyrtle with an armful of rocks and saw Pyrtle throw the rock which hit
him (Tr . 437). Ward climbed off the truck and walked in front of the truck.
At that moment one of the men started to hit him again. Ward said to him,
"You have done enough damage, you have already broken my arm ." The man
let him go . The man had a rubber hose in his hand (Tr. 438).
When Utley and Belcher regained consciousness the rest of the Arkansas
crew was gone . They were then told that they should get the truck off the right-
of-way or it would be burned (Tr. 97, 493).
4 Other versions , essentially the same, appear at pp . 95, 203, 287 , 388, 476.
Hospitalization and medical attention was required for some of the injuries sus-
tained by Utley, Belcher, and Ward. It was not until May 21 that Langston could
convince the nonstrikers that it would be safe for them to return to work which they
did on that date.
Except as otherwise already indicated , little of the foregoing was controverted
or denied. However , Larkin, Keeble, and Wilson denied that they were at the park
at the time in question or that they were at the scene of the violence when it
occurred . They also denied that they or the Union had any responsibility for the
events in question
According to Wilson's testimony , substantially corroborated in Keeble's testimony,
at the time of the events in question ,5 he and Keeble were at or en route to the Taum
Sauk project 6 some fifty twisting and turning miles away .? They testified that they
5 The attack occurred just about 8 o'clock , the Langston starting time
O Where they had an 8 o'clock appointment on some union business with one Bill Tinker
of the project contractor, Fruin-Conlon.
7 Wilson admitted having been at the wayside park with Keeble about 6 30 that morning
for the purpose of picking up five authorization cards from Larkin . To do this Wilson,
who lives in Wittenberg, had arisen about 3:15 that morning , driven the 45 miles to his
office at St Mary's, and then drove another 60 miles or more to his meeting with Larkin.
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
arrived at the Taum Sauk project about 8:15 and left about 10 o'clock Tinker,
called as a witness by Respondent, testified that Wilson and Keeble kept their appoint-
ment, arriving "shortly after 8, maybe between 8 and 8:15, possibly 8:30." He
indicated that he was not sure of the time.
The evidence shows that people entering and leaving the project are checked in and
out by a guard who records the visitors' names, their business affiliation or other
identification, and the time of their entering and leaving. The Company's records for
May 9, 1962, showed that Wilson and Keeble entered the project at 10:40 a.m.
and left at 12:30 p.m. On the basis of this evidence, plus my observation of the
witnesses and certain other questionable testimony by Wilson and Keeble, I have no
difficulty or hesitancy in crediting Langston's and Utley's testimony that they saw
Wilson and Keeble at the wayside park on May 9 shortly before 8 a.m. and that they
also saw the two union officials at the scene of the attack on the Arkansas crew shortly
thereafter.8
Conclusions
Having found the top union officials , Wilson and Keeble, to have been at the
wayside park or staging area for the assault, and then, shortly before it took place,
at the scene of the assault with no evidence of an attempt on their part to counter
or prevent it or to protest against it, I further find that the Union was responsible
and liable for it. Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487; United
Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO (R. L. Zeigler, Inc.), 123 NLRB 464.
In addition to the foregoing the General Counsel adduced various other evidence
which he offered to show that a threat of physical violence to the employees by
Larkin and Cox was made by those two as agents of the Union and thus was at-
tributable to the Union. Since I have found the Union responsible for the actual
violence that occurred, I deem it unnecessary to resolve the responsibility for the
threat of violence since it is my view that the lesser offense, related as it is to the
greater, is merged therewith Thus an order to cease and desist from threatening
the commission of violence is as warranted on the facts I find herein as an order
to cease and desist the actual commission of violence. Since the remedy I shall
recommend will be no different than if I were to find the additional alleged unfair
labor practice, and in order to shorten and expedite the issuance of this Intermediate
Report, I do not resolve this matter of the threat and the agency of Larkin and Cox.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Charging Party described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
In addition to the usual cease-and -desist order of the General Counsel asks that
(1) the victims of the Union's assault be reimbursed for all expenditures incurred
in the treatment of their injuries; and ( 2) the nonstriking employees , including their
foreman, be made whole for all loss of pay incurred by reason of their loss of work
from May 9 to 21 , the period during which fear generated from the Union's unlaw-
ful conduct prevented them from working.
Being aware of no Board precedent regarding No. 1 above, I agree with the
General Counsel's proposal and shall recommend such an order. As for No. 2,
however , since the Board has considered such a remedy and decided against it
(Colonial Hardwood Flooring Company, Inc, 84 NLRB 563; Local 983. United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, et al . (0 W. Burke
8In connection with the credibility of Wilson and Keeble I want to note one of the addi-
tional facets of their testimony which to me seems incredible on its face. Keeble testified
that when the picketing began Wilson told the strikers that lie wanted no arguments,
fights, "no violence of any kind" ; that if there were any trouble they should call him or
Keeble, that they were as near to them as the telephone Notwithstanding this testimony,
Wilson and Keeble both further testified that they first learned of the attack by reading
of it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch which, incidentally, does not reach them until the day
after publication.
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS , ETC., LOCAL 916 571
Company), 115 NLRB 1123), I shall not recommend that part of the remedy
proposed by the General Counsel.
In addition to the foregoing I shall also recommend that in addition to the usual
posting of notices to inform the employees what steps are being taken to remedy
its untair labor practices, the Respondent mail such notices individually to all the
men employed by Langston as of May 9 on the work in question. Moreover,
because of the kind of work involved and type of labor utilized and the resulting
possibility that individual notices might not adequately publicize to Langston's
employees Respondent's remedial actions, I shall further recommend that Re-
spondent publish such notice once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in the Courier
Press, a weekly paper published in Ellington, Missouri.
Because of the seriousness of the Union's unfair labor practices I shall also
recommend that it cease and desist from in any manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
this proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Owen Langston is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By physically assaulting employees of Owen Langston because of their failure
to join in a strike, the Union has restrained and coerced employees within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in this matter, it is recommended that International Hod
Carriers, Building and Common Laborers of America, Local 916, AFL-CIO, its
officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Physically assaulting employees or threatening them with physical assault
for exercising their right to refuse to engage in a strike.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such is required
by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I deem necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Mail to each individual employee who was on Owen Langston's payroll for
his Irby Construction Company coati act as of May 9, 1962, a copy of the attached
notice marked "Appendix," 9 said notice to be furnished to Respondent by the
Regional Director of the Fourteenth Region and to be signed by Respondent's presi-
dent and business agent, Woodrow Wilson, and by its financial secretary and
assistant business agent, James Keeble.
(b) Post at its office and meeting hall copies of said duly signed notice im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and maintain it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, of covered by other material.
(c) Publish said notice for 3 consecutive weeks in Courier Press published in
Ellington, Missouri.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.io
'In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words " The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order "
io In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read* "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS , BUILDING AND COMMON
LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA , LocAL 916, AFL-CIO AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF
OWEN LANGSTON
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT physically assault employees or threaten them with physical
assault when they exercise their right to refrain from joining in a strike.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in any other manner in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , except as a condition of employment as provided for in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse and pay Lester Utley, Tommy Belcher, and Homer Ward
all expenditures or monetary obligations they incurred as a result of treatment
for the injuries they received on May 9, 1962, because of the union-sponsored
physical assault upon them.
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND
COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA,
LocAL 916, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 4459
Federal Building , 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri, Telephone No. Main
1-8100, Extension 2142, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Certified Casting & Engineering, Inc. and Local 243, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , Ind. Case No. 7-CA-4079. De-
cember 24, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 13, 1963, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Inter-
145 NLRB No. 59.