Intl. Assoc. of MachinistsDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 26, 1970183 N.L.R.B. 1225 (N.L.R.B. 1970) Copy Citation INTL ASSOC. OF International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and its Agent, Juan L. Maldonado and General Electric Com- pany, Circuit Protective Devices Department, Caribe Plant Operations ; General Electric Power Products , Inc.; General Electric Circuit Breakers, Inc. Case 24-CB-718 June 26, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS On April 7, 1970, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed- ing, 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 Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom- mended that these allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiners Decision 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex- aminer ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent , International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and its agent Juan L Maldonado , Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, its officers , agents, and representa- tives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer 's Recommended Order. MACHINISTS 1225 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE OWSLEY VOSE, Trial Examiner: This case was heard at Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, on January 21 to 23, 1970,' pursuant to a charge and amended charges filed by the Charging Parties on October 30 and 31 and November 6, and a complaint issued on November 26. The complaint as amended at the hearing presents the question whether the Respon- dents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by certain acts and conduct during a strike at the plant of the Charging Parties at Palmer, Puerto Rico. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the Charging Parties and the Respon- dents, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS The Charging Parties, General Electric Com- pany, Circuit Protective Devices Department, Caribe Plant Operations (Caribe); General Electric Power Products, Inc. (Power Products); and General Electric Circuit Breakers, Inc. (C B.I.), hereinafter collectively referred to as the Company, are Puerto Rico corporations operating plants at Palmer, Puerto Rico, where they are engaged in the manufacture of electrical products. All three cor- porations constitute a single employer having its labor relations policies centrally formulated, con- trolled, and enforced. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, the Company had more than $50,000 worth of materials shipped to its plant from places outside of Puerto Rico, and dur- ing this same period shipped in excess of $50,000 worth of electrical products to destinations outside of Puerto Rico. Upon the foregoing facts I find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effec- tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the IAM, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III, THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The IAM's Alleged Violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act ' All date, mentioned hereinafter are in 1969, unless specified otherwise 183 NLRB No. 126 1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. Background After the IAM won an election among the Com- pany's employees which was conducted by the Board's Regional Director at Hato Rey, the Com- pany filed objections to the election based upon certain preelection conduct of the IAM. While these objections were pending before the Regional Director, the IAM commenced distributing a series of leaflets at the plant gates advocating that the em- ployees go out on strike. As appears in a leaflet dis- tributed outside the plant on October 9, a majority of the employees at an IAM meeting on October 5, voted to authorize strike action at some future date. By a leaflet distributed by the IAM at the plant gates on October 20, the IAM notified the em- ployees that the Regional Drector had overruled the Company's objections to the election and urged full support for the strike at such time as it should be called. On October 27 the IAM distributed another leaflet at the plant gates announcing that the Company had requested the Board to grant an extension of time for filing an appeal from the Re- gional Director's decision overruling the Com- pany's objections to the election. This leaflet, which was signed by Juan Maldonado as IAM representa- tive, concluded with the following paragraph: Why didn't [the Company] inform you that they would appeal. I do not believe that I should have to make any other comment. The strike commenced during the early morning hours of Tuesday, October 28. Although Mal- donado, who is the IAM's special representative in Puerto Rico, testified that he had not called the strike at that particular time, he admitted that he backed the strike as soon as it started. B. Events During the Strike 2 1. Introduction ; the Company's facilities The Company 's facilities consist of two main buildings , one housing the operations of Caribe and Power Products and the other the operations of C.B.I. The plant area is surrounded by a chain link fence. The main or front entrance to the plant area is through a gate located on State Road 112. On both sides of the private road leading from the main gate into the plant are two large employee parking lots. Each of these parking lots has two gates through which employees can enter from State Road 112 . The two nearest parking lot gates are each less than 100 feet away from the main front gate. The two farthest parking lot gates are about 200 feet further down the road in both directions. Thus in a distance of about 600 feet along State Road 112 there are five gates to the Company's 2 Since the IAM did not call any witnesses in its behalf, the facts found below concerning the events during the strike are based upon the undemed and credited testimony of witnesses called by the General Counsel , with the exception of two incidents involving visits of IAM Representative Mal- plant area. Access to the plant area is also afforded by a back gate which is connected by an access road, less than 300 feet long, to Old State Road 3. The location of the employees' homes determines whether they enter the plant area through the front or back gates. For the past 23 months the Company has kept all these gates chained and padlocked in an open posi- tion. Several weeks before the strike the Company purchased and installed new padlocks. Another union on strike at another employer 's plant had recently adopted the strategy of locking the plant gates closed, and the Company was aware through the leaflets distributed at its gates that IAM Representative Maldonado was advocating strike action . This was the reason, as Caribe President Davis testified, that the Company adopted the precaution of keeping its plant gates locked in an open position. 2. October 28 About 3 a.m. a guard informed Vincente Torres, the supervisor of the night shift at the plant, that someone had padlocked closed the front and the back gates to the plant. Torres, after investigating and verifying that this was true, notified higher management and called the police. About this same time, Torres observed two carloads of pickets arriv- ing in the front gate area. At 7 a.m. on October 28 Torres saw Roque Escobar, a former company employee and a leader in the IAM organizing campaign prior to the elec- tion, open gate 8 in the south parking area to allow the third-shift employees, some 10 to 12 in number, to leave the plant. After they had left, Escobar chained and padlocked the gate closed and joined IAM Representative Maldonado who was standing 12 to 15 feet away. Gate 8 is adjacent to the front main gate. There were some 300 persons in this general area at the time, including pickets, em- ployees seeking to go into work, policemen, and bystanders. Maldonado was in the area at 8 a.m., also, when John Gibson, a tool and equipment specialist for the Company, arrived at the main gate to go to work. Observing a large number of persons stand- ing around in the area, including a group of police- men, and that the gates were chained closed, Gibson left the area. Shortly after 10 a.m. James Davis, plant manager of Caribe, Arthur Ridolfi, manager of materials at C.B.I., and Dale Wheeler, manager of engineering and quality control at C.B.I., cut open the chain with which the inner back gate had been padlocked closed. Ridolfi and Wheeler continued on towards the outer back gate intending to cut the chain on donado to homes of nonstriking employees Maldonado was called as a wit- ness by the General Counsel On a cross-examination by his counsel, Mal- donado was questioned about these incidents and his testimony is con- sidered in connection with my findings concerning these incidents INTL. ASSOC. OF MACHINISTS that gate also. However, they were greeted by the strikers, who were outside the gate, with threats and thrown rocks, and Davis instructed Ridolfi and Wheeler to retreat before reaching the outer gate. Later that morning Caribe Plant Manager Davis and David Esperson, another of the Company's plant managers , sought to approach the front gate, but when they got within range they encountered rocks thrown by the strikers. Esperson was hit on the knee. Davis and Esperson then turned back. That same day Davis overheard Nunez, a shop manager who was approaching one of the parking lot gates with a bolt cutter in his hand, being warned by a striker nicknamed Cano, "Please get back before you get hurt." At 1:30 p.m. that day Ridolfi and Wheeler again approached the outer back gate with a bolt cutter. There were about 8 to 10 strikers, including Hector Baez , a leader in the organizational campaign prior to the election, in the vicinity of the gate at this time, as well as about 4 policemen. As Wheeler and Ridolfi neared the gate , Baez jumped up and went to the fence, accompanied by four or five other strikers. They all had sticks or clubs which they poked through the wire mesh as Wheeler attempted to cut the chain with a bolt cutter. They hit Wheeler on the stomach, chest, and shoulder, preventing him from cutting the chain. At the same time Emilio Ramos, another striker, tossed a log 4- or 5-feet long by 3 inches in diameter over the fence, striking Wheeler in the head. While this was going on, Ridolfi was attempting to persuade one of the policemen to obtain reinforcements from a nearby intersection where a larger number of police were stationed. Baez goaded Wheeler into making a second attempt and when he did so, he again was struck with sticks through the fence. Baez then signaled to another striker, who threw a bucket of cold water on Wheeler. This other striker then threw a small can of liquid on Wheeler which later caused a warming sensation on his face and arms. By this time about 25 additional strikers and 6 addi- tional policemen had arrived. When Ridolfi asked the assistance of the policemen in opening the gate, their only reply was, "Wait." During this confronta- tion, Samuel Rivera, one of the strikers, warned Wheeler that he would kill Wheeler or Ridolfi if either one attempted to cut the chain or step out- side the gate. 3. October 29 Pursuant to assurances received from the police earlier, additional policemen arrived at the plant between 1:30 and 2 a.m. on October 29. There were approximately 30 to 40 persons outside the front gates at this time. Hector Baez waved his fist in front of policemen and angrily yelled that "over my body somebody is going to come in through this gate." Later Baez , naming several supervisors, threatened "that he would catch them outside; that they were going to pay with their lives." 1227 About 7 a.m. IAM Representative Maldonado was observed by company officials making a speech to the 40 or 50 persons in the front gate area. Shortly thereafter the Company received word from the police that they were ready to give protection to enable it to open the front gate. Caribe President Davis and Materials Manager Ridolfi approached the front gate with wire cutters. As Ridolfi started to cut the chain, the crowd roared, "No, no, no, no. ... hand the scissors to Maldonado." A police of- ficer instructed Ridolfi to give the cutters to Mal- donado. Davis said, "No, we don't recognize Mr. Maldonado," and instructed Ridolfi not to give up the cutters. As the two men started backing away from the gate, a stone arched over Ridolfi's head and Davis was hit in the groin with a rock. Approximately an hour later, word was received from the police that additional policemen were on duty at the front gate. A solid line of policemen was set up in front of the gate and several supervisors went down and were able to cut the chain, push the gates back, and chain and padlock them in an open position. Around 9 a.m. John Gibson, a tool and equip- ment specialist with the Company, drove to the main gate and tried to enter. However, Maldonado and a group of strikers stood around the car and prevented him from entering the plant. Among the strikers were Hector Baez and Juanita Hernandez. The group, but not Maldonado, proceeded to shake Gibson's car. The police refused to heed Gibson's pleas for assistance and Gibson backed up and con- tinued down the road. A little later Plant Manager Esperson drove a sta- tion wagon , in which four or five other manage- ment officials were riding, up to the main gate and attempted to drive in. A group of persons, some of whom carried picket signs, were blocking the gate. Among those in front of the station wagon were Maldonado , Juanita Hernandez , and Hector Baez. Police Lt. Col. Erosmos Lopez informed Esperson that the pickets were blocking the entrance because there were employees in the car. Esperson assured Lopez that all persons in the car were members of management. While this conversation was in progress, a thrown bottle hit the window next to the right front seat. Lt. Col. Lopez conferred briefly with the pickets in front of the station wagon and returned with the advice that they had better not try to enter. Esperson followed this advice. About 3:30 p.m. that day Materials Manager Ridolfi attempted to drive Caribe President Davis, C.B.I. President Kauffman, Engineering Manager Wheeler, and one of the Company's attorneys, Mr. Lugo, out of the front gate in a company station wagon. There were approximately 15 to 20 pickets standing by the gate at this time, including Juanita Hernandez. Maldonado was standing in the background talking to a policeman. Ridolfi told the police officer in charge, "We don't want to create a scene here. We don't want to get hurt and we don't want to see anybody get hurt ... can you guarantee 1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD us safety passage through the picket line." The of- ficer replied, "No sir, at this moment I don't have enough troops around here to guarantee that." At President Kauffman's direction, Ridolfi turned back. Having been frustrated in their efforts to leave by the front gate, shortly thereafter Ridolfi and Wheeler and a number of other supervisors left the plant area by a side gate which opens out into marsh land and open fields. Ridolfi and one group went to the rear of the Rio Grande Industries plant, located on an adjoining tract of land. Wheeler made his way to Old State Road 3, and as he neared the front of the Rio Grande Industries plant a red Mustang screeched to a halt immediately be- hind him. Wheeler jumped and started running for the Rio Grande Industries plant. Nicholas Matta, a leader in the IAM preelection organizing activities, and three other men from the red Mustang chased Wheeler into the building. He arrived there just after Ridolfi and the other group who had witnessed the men chasing Wheeler and had themselves de- cided to retreat to the safety of the building. Wheeler and the Ridolfi group entered the office of the manager of the Rio Grande Industries. Matta and the others followed them to the door of the of- fice where they made threatening gestures, such as to slash the throats of Wheeler, Ridolfi, and the others. About this time about 15 more strikers en- tered the building, all armed with clubs and they brandished the clubs at the company officials and shouted at them. Shortly thereafter the police came and drove the company officials to a safe point. When they left some 35 to 40 persons were milling about in the street in front of Rio Grande Indus- tries. 4. October 30 About 7:30 a.m. Ridolfi and C.B.I. President Kauffman landed on Luquillo Beach in a rented helicopter. Arrangements had been previously made to have Attorney Lugo meet them there for a lift into the plant. Not seeing Lugo anywhere in the vicinity, Ridolfi got out of the helicopter to look for him. As he reached a nearby road he observed Mal- donado and three unidentified persons running towards him around a corner. Ridolfi started retreating backwards, step by step. As Ridolfi backed away, Maldonado called him "a god damned strike breaker" and told him "to get the hell out of here." As he did so Maldonado lurched forward and slapped Ridolfi in the face. One of the other three men who was alongside Maldonado started pushing Ridolfi back towards the helicopter with his two hands. Ridolfi turned and went back to the helicopter. 5. November 3 During the first week of the strike management officials were able to enter the plant area only by helicopter. About 6:30 a.m. on November 3 a procession of four cars containing management of- ficials arrived at the front gate. They were stopped by a group of 40 to 50 strikers who were standing around the gate. Numerous other persons were in this general area. At this time Maldonado was standing across the street about 50 feet away ob- serving the scene. The first car, which Caribe Pre- sident Davis was driving, was promptly surrounded by pickets, including Hector Baez. A rock was thrown completely through the left rear window of the first car. A police officer motioned to Davis to enter the plant. As he inched forward in the car strikers beat on the car windows and the body with clubs and rocks and the windshield was shattered by clubs. As the next three cars passed by, the strikers rained blows on all parts of the cars with rocks, chains, and clubs, and shattered the windshields of the other three cars. The occupants of all four cars were showered with shards of shat- tered glass and a few of the occupants received cuts on their hands and faces from the flying glass. Mal- donado, although he observed this violent conduct, made no effort to stop it. Later that morning, between 7 and 8 a.m., about 100 employees who were desirous of going to work met in the plaza in the town of Palmer. When they reached the point where Old State Road 3 meets the access road to the back gate to the plant they encountered a group of about 100 strikers armed with clubs and chains. The strikers threatened and cursed them, and about half of the employees seek- ing work abandoned the effort. The rest continued on down the access road to the back gate where they were met by about 15 pickets, including Hec- tor Baez, Nicholas Matta , and Juanita Hernandez. The latter yelled "here by come, get them, hit them, don't let them go." When the pickets started waving sticks at them and cursing them, the em- ployees gave up the attempt to go to work that morning . While all this was going on Maldonado was over to one side smiling broadly. 6. November 5 No employees made any attempt to go to work on November 4. But on November 5 employees seeking to go to work again gathered on the plaza in Palmer. Damian Arocho went across the plaza to the police station and asked for assistance for the group in getting into the plant. When the group neared the intersection of the access road and Old State Road 3 they saw about 50 pickets scattered on various corners. Juanita Hernandez was walking back and forth in front of the pickets talking to them. Among the other pickets were Hector Baez, Nicholas Matta, and Nathaniel Lopez. IAM Representative Maldonado was also talking to the pickets. As the group reached the access road the pickets commenced cursing the workers and mak- ing threats, such as "Don't hurry, your wives and children are alone in the house" and "We are going INTL. ASSOC. OF MACHINISTS to burn your car which is in the carport." Mal- donado himself warned the workers that if they went in they "would not come out." Then Mal- donado stepped away and the pickets commenced menacing the workers with the picket signs and sticks. At this point some 15 or more policemen who were in the vicinity forcibly cleared a path for the workers , who were women for the most part. They started running down the access road towards the back gate to the plant . The pickets poked sticks at them and threw stones at them as they ran. Matta hit Rafael Gonzalez with a stick as Mal- donado stood by laughing. When the shift ended at 3 : 30 p.m . the workers started walking down the access road . The police sought to disperse pickets who were gathered around the intersection of the access road and Old State Road 3. Among the pickets were Juanita Her- nandez, Matta , and Baez. Maldonado also was present and he yelled " Now, now grab them, those are the ones . . . . There are the strike breakers, hit them hard ." A picket named Teresa , who had been talking to Juanita Hernandez , hit a worker named Diomina with a stick , as a result of which Diomina fell down . Upon a hand signal from Maldonado, Juanita Hernandez , Baez , and Matta started throw- ing stones at the workers. 7. November 6 Employee Rafael Gonzalez was awaiting trans- portation to the plant in the town of Rio Grande early on November 6 when three cars drew up alongside him, one containing Maldonado , Nicholas Matta , Samuel Rivera , Nathaniel Lopez, and Car- men Laura Cruz, and two others containing persons whom he recognized as company employees, but whose names he did not know . Maldonado, after shouting , "There , that is the son of a bitch," got out of the car and made a motion with his hand as if to grab Gonzalez . Gonzalez started running and Mal- donado commenced chasing after Gonzalez, ac- companied by Carmen Laura Cruz and another girl. Gonzalez ducked into a nearby laundry owned by his father . Outside the laundry Maldonado sought by gestures to get Gonzalez to come out , berated him for going to work the previous day, and cursed him. Maldonado and the others accompanying him departed abruptly, just ahead of the police. The workers assembled in the plaza on the morn- ing of November 6 as they had the day before, and again sought police protection . The workers en- countered a solid mass of pickets at the intersection with the access road , including Juanita Hernandez, Matta , and Angel Fuentes . On this occasion Mal- donado was sitting in his car addressing the pickets over a loudspeaker. Among other things, Mal- donado exhorted the pickets " to take the bags away from the ladies and to hit [them], because the women were the more daring ones ." Maldonado also urged the pickets to "tear their clothes away." The police managed to clear the way for the work- 1229 ers and they darted down the access road under a barrage of rocks and bottles . Angel Fuentes hit Josefa Lebron on the head with a stick. Leaving the plant that aftrnoon the situation was much the same . The pickets were gathered at the intersection of the access road and Old State Road 3. Stones were flying and Jeremias Cabrera got hit with a stone thrown by Samuel Rivera . Maldonado was standing about 15 feet away from the pickets laughing. 8. November 7 Fewer workers showed up at the plaza on the morning of November 7. The pickets were at the intersection as usual , as were a number of po- licemen . However , Maldonado was not present. Damian Arocho approached the pickets and inquired who was in charge. Juanita Hernandez and Hector Baez replied, "We are." Arocho sought per- mission for himself and 15 girls, who had worked November 5 and 6 , to enter the plant . He urged that they needed the money, that they were not going to do much production , and that they would not undermine the strike in any significant way. Finally Hernandez and Baez agreed . Arocho went back to the plaza and brought his group to the picket line . The pickets allowed the girls to pass through , but, according to Arocho, as he passed through " Hell broke loose. ... They closed in on me. They hit me, they called me all kinds of names .... son of a bitch, traitor , queer , bastard." The police came and pulled off Arocho 's attackers and he went on into the plant. Coming out of the plant at 3:30 p . m. that day, the pickets attacked the group with " hundreds of stones." Leading the attack were Juanita Hernan- dez, Matta, Baez, and Angel Fuentes . Fuentes threatened to kill Arocho that day. The group fled into the police station. Arocho waited there for things to quiet down for about 2 hours. The pickets, however , did not disperse . They were wait- ing when Arocho left the police station in the com- pany of a police officer who was driving him home and again threatened to kill him. As soon as Arocho arrived home , he put his family in the car and left town . He explained , " I was scared that time." 9. Maldonado 's visits to homes of workers About a week after Arocho 's first return to work Maldonado visited Arocho 's home in Rio Grande with a group of men in three cars. According to Arocho , Maldonado was accompanied by about 25 men, including Matta and Fuentes. Arocho testified as follows about this incident: I invited Mr. Maldonado to my place, then he explained to me that he was having-lead- ing the strike , because he wanted our welfare and he tried to convince me to join them on the strike and that he needed a little more time to make the company sign, then I specifically 1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD told him that no dice , that I would not join them . Then he changed from the sweet mellow tones to telling me that he knew people in Fajardo that would kill anybody for a dime, for a nickel , that my life was in danger , and I said, "I know those people , too, but I am still going to work ." But finally I agreed with him. I said, "I am going to stay home a week and then I am going to move again and go to work if I can because I got a family to support , and we were talking for about forty -five minutes ... It was a threatening visit , because he went with the three carloads of people. Then he left and I told him at the time when I go back there is going to be some people with me and I would hate for something bad to hap- pen. "It is your responsibility to control your people, not to throw stones or maybe kill somebody , because when this happens, comes up, anything can happen , and I think it is your responsibility to control your people." And he waved and left, waved like "I don 't care." .. . On cross-examination by counsel for the Respon- dent , Maldonado explained his visit to Arocho's home as follows : He had been informed that Arocho may have been the source of information on which the newspaper , El Mundo , based an arti- cle which referred to Maldonado as a Communist and stated that as a result of his communistic prac- tices certain employees of the Company had aban- doned the IAM. Accordingly, he visited Arocho's home to discuss the matter with Arocho. Mal- donado testified that Arocho denied having given the information to El Mundo and that " the theme changed to [Arocho's] financial problems because he had a large family...." Maldonado did not deny that he was accompanied by three carloads of men on his visit; nor did he deny Arocho's testimony concerning Maldonado's mentioning men in Fajar- do who would kill anybody for a dime or a nickel. Under all the circumstances, I credit Arocho's testimony concerning the portion of the conversa- tion with Maldonado quoted above and find the facts to be as therein stated. Maldonado also visited the home of Rafael Gon- zalez in Rio Grande under similar circumstances. This visit occurred after the incident involving Mal- donado 's chasing Gonzalez into his father 's laundry. On this occasion Maldonado came with four car- loads of "people ." The discussion concerned the same El Mundo article as was involved in the visit to Arocho's home. No threats were uttered on this occasion. On two or three other occasions at night Mal- donado drove slowly past Gonzalez ' home in a car in which Juanita Hernandez, Matta, Samuel Rivera, and one other were riding . As the car drove past, the occupants peered into Gonzalez ' house. C. Conclusions 1. The law governing union responsibility for strike misconduct The IAM's contentions in general are discussed below . Its principal contention is that the actions of the pickets on the picket line were not authorized by it and that consequently it is not responsible for their conduct . In view of this contention it is ap- propriate to discuss at the outset the general legal principles governing union responsibility for strike misconduct. It is settled that where , as in this case , a picket line is the scene of repeated acts of misconduct, to the knowledge of the union conducting the picket- ing, the union has the duty to take steps reasonably calculated effectively to curb the misconduct, and failing this the union may be held responsible for resulting restraint and coercion of employees. Local 5881, United Mine Workers (Grundy Mining Co.), 130 NLRB 1181 , 1182, enfd . 296 F.2d 734 (C.A. 6); United Steelworkers of America ( Vulcan-Cincin- nati, Inc.), 137 NLRB 95, 98 ; Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO (New Power Wire and Electric Corp.), 144 NLRB 1089, 1091-92, enfd . 340 F.2d 71 (C.A. 2); Teamsters Local 783, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville), 160 NLRB 1776, 1779; Congreso de Uniones Industri- ales de Puerto Rico, Ind. (Gayley Rico Company), 163 NLRB 448, 450-453. Furthermore, even as to conduct occurring out- side the presence of acknowledged union agents and without the knowledge of the union conducting the picketing, the union may be held responsible for such conduct where it follows a pattern established by acknowledged union agents . As held in International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO (W. T. Smith Lumber Co.), 116 NLRB 507, 508-509, enfd . 243 F.2d 745 (C.A. 5): As to the misconduct by pickets .... we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respon- dents were liable therefor. However, unlike the Trial Examiner , we do not predicate such responsibility on the absence of any evidence that any picket captain sought to prevent such misconduct . As it does not appear from the record that any picket captains were in fact present on such occasions , we impute responsi- bility to the ... Local for such misconduct rather on the fact that it conformed to a pat- tern established by the officers and agents of that Local through their own unlawful acts of coercion and restraint.... More recently the Board in Teamsters Local 115, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (E. J. Lavino & Company), 157 NLRB 1637,1642-43, stated the proposition as follows: This attitude of the Respondent 's business agent coupled with the restraint and coercion practiced by the Union 's picket captains is suf- ficient to make the Union legally responsible for the restraint and coercion practiced by other strikers who were but following the pat- tern laid down by Respondent 's agents .... That this proposition is applicable to conduct away INTL. ASSOC. OF from the picket line, as well as on the picket line, is clearly stated in International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (The Sperry Rubber & Plastics Company), 134 NLRB 1713, 1724. 2. Recapitulation a. The IAM's chaining closed the gates to the plant As found above, for some months the Company had kept the gates to the plant chained and locked with padlocks in an open position. In the early morning hours of October 28, the night the strike commenced-a strike previously advocated by the IAM and supported by it from the start-the Com- pany found its gates chained and padlocked in a closed position, thus barring for the time being all ingress to and egress from the plant. Caribe Pre- sident Davis testified that several weeks before the strike the Company had purchased new padlocks for the plant gates and that the padlocks which he found on the gates that day were not the Com- pany's padlocks and that the Company did not have keys for them. Roque Escobar, a former employee and a leader in the [AM organizing campaign prior to the election, was observed letting the night-shift employees out of the south parking area through gate 8. Immediately after doing so, Escobar joined Maldonado who was standing 12 to 15 feet away. Considering the foregoing facts in light of the IAM's determined efforts in the following days to bar all access to the plant, I conclude that the IAM was responsible for the chaining and locking in a closed position the various gates to the plant. I con- clude further that by placing physical barriers across the various entryways to the plant where they were plainly visible to all strikers and non- strikers alike, the IAM has restrained and coerced the Company's employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.3 b. The IAM's attacks on company officials and its barring of officials from entering or leaving the plant As found above, when tool specialist Gibson at- tempted to drive into the plant at 9 a.m. on Oc- Sec 8 provides in part as follows (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- (1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 Sec 7 states that MACHINISTS 1231 tober 29, the second day of the strike, Maldonado and a group of strikers, including Baez and Hernan- dez, stood around the car, and the group shook the car and barred it from entering. Shortly thereafter a car driven by Plant Manager Esperson was similarly blocked from entering the plant by Maldonado, Baez, Hernandez, and others. Maldonado having himself participated in the 'blocking of these cars, there can be no question of the IAM's responsibility for this conduct. The blocking of access to super- visors to the plant constituted an object lesson to all witnessing it as to the IAM's determination to prevent anyone from entering the plant. Such con- duct constitutes restraint and coercion of em- ployees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. While the record does not show whether em- ployees seeking to go to work were present at the front gate on the morning of October 29 when the Gibson and Esperson cars were blocked from enter- ing the plant, the record does show that some 40 to 50 strikers were present. Even assuming that strik- ing employees were the only employees observing the blocking of the cars, Section 8(b)(I )(A) has nevertheless been violated. As the Board has held, such conduct has "the effect of coercively deterring any of the strikers from abandoning the strike and returning to work." International Woodworkers of America, supra, 508. This holding was specifically affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir- cuit in N.L. R.B. v. International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 243 F.2d 745. See also Team- sters, Local Union 327 (Hartmann Luggage Com- pany), 173 NLRB 1403, enfd. in pertinent respects 419 F.2d 1282 (C.A. 6). The action of the group of 15 to 20 pickets that afternoon in standing around the front gate as Materials Manager Ridolfi attemtped to leave in a station wagon with three other management offi- cials and a company attorney similarly violated Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A). Although Maldonado was on the scene on this occasion, he did nothing, so far as the record shows, to stop the obstruction of the vehicle. The stoning of Caribe Plant Manager Davis and Materials Manager Ridolfi as they were retreating from attempting to cut open the front gate about 7 a.m. on October 29 further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). Maldonado was standing immediately outside the front gate together with 40 to 50 strikers when this rock throwing occurred. This conduct, which was aimed at preventing the Com- pany from opening the gates to nonstriking em- ployees, underscored the willingness of the IAM to use violence to prevent employees from entering the plant, and necessarily restrained and coerced Employees shall have the right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid of protec- tion, and shall have the right to refrain from any or all ofsuch activi- ties [Emphasis supplied I 1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD strikers and any nonstriking employees who ob- served it.4 Similarly violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act was the strikers' action in chasing company of- ficials into the office of Rio Grande Industries late in the afternoon of October 29 and in threatening these officials with bodily harm. Nicholas Matta, the leader of this threatening group of strikers was the right-hand man of Maldonado. Damian Arocho credibly testified that Matta "is always next to Mal- donado wherever they go." Matta was involved with Maldonado in chasing nonstriking employee Rafael Gonzalez in the town of Rio Grande on the morning of November 6. It is apparent from Mal- donado's participation in the Gonzalez incident that chasing and threatening employees was part of the IAM's strategy for preventing nonstriking em- ployees from attempting to go to work. In these cir- cumstances I conclude that the IAM is responsible for the chasing and threatening of the company of- ficials in the office of Rio Grande Industries on Oc- tober 29. Wth respect to the incident of Maldonado's slapping of Materials Manager Ridolfi on the morn- ing of October 30 at Luquillo Beach, while such conduct is not to be condoned, I find that in the cir- cumstances of this case it did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. This incident occurred some miles from the plant, was not witnessed by any employees, and occurred under such circum- stances that it was not likely to come to the atten- tion of employees. Local 1922, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 122 NLRB 850, 851. The allegation of the complaint as amended based upon this attack on Ridolfi is hereby dismissed. As found above, strikers made a violent attack on the procession of four cars containing management officials on the morning of November 3. This at- tack, in the presence of some 40-50 strikers, con- stituted a flagrant violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The attack on the four cars with rocks, chains, and clubs as they were entering the front gate resulted in serious damage to the cars, includ- ing four shattered windshields and broken windows, and minor cuts to the occupants. Maldonado was standing about 50 feet away during this incident ob- serving what was going on. He did nothing to stop the attack. Under the circumstances the IAM was clearly responsible for this attack. c. The attacks on employees attemtping to enter and the leave As found above, on the mornings of November 3, 5, 6, and 7, a number of nonstriking employees The Company contends that the actions of the pickets on October 28, the first day of the strike, in attacking company officials with sticks and stones as they were attempting to cut open the gates to the plant and in threatening them on these occasions constituted further violations of Sec 8(h)( I)(A) of the Act Such conduct of the pickets, if the IAM was respon. sible therefor, would clearly violate Sec 8 (b)( I)(A) of the Act However,[ gathered in the town of Palmer to attempt to enter the plant in groups. When the nonstrikers reached the general area of the back gate to the plant, they were confronted by numerous pickets who cursed and threatened them with harm to themselves, their families, and their property, menaced them with clubs, sticks, and chains, and actually hit them with sticks, thrown rocks, and other missiles. As the employees sought to leave the plant at the end of the shift pickets were waiting for them and employees were subjected by the pickets to much the same treatment. Maldonado was present on each morning when the nonstrikers attempted to go to work, except the last morning, November 7. But instead of attempt- ing to prevent the pickets from engaging in these acts of violence, Maldonado at times himself threatened the employees with physical harm or sought to egg the pickets on to further violence. As found above, on the morning of November 6, Mal- donado went so far as to urge the pickets to tear the clothes off the girls. In these circumstances the IAM is clearly respon- sible for the actions of the pickets against the non- striking employees on November 3, 5, and 6. By November 7, the pattern of action against the non- strikers had been set by the pickets' actions on the previous days, which Maldonado had either directed or ratified. Consequently, the IAM is responsible for the pickets' actions against non- strikers on November 7 regardless of the fact that Maldonado apparently was not on the picket line that day. By the pickets' actions against the non- strikers summarized above and by Maldonado's threats against them , the Respondent has restrained and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Teamsters, Local Union 327 (Hartmann Luggage Company), 173 NLRB 1403 enfd . in pertinent respects 419 F.2d 1282 (C.A. 6). d. Restraint and coercion of employees away from the plant Two incidents involving actions by Maldonado and other strikers against nonstrikers away from the plant are discussed below. Although these incidents were not specifically alleged in the complaint, they fall within the general language of the first unnum- bered paragraph of part V of the complaint alleging that "Union agents engaged in various acts of restraint and coercion against ... nonstriking em- ployees for the purpose of intimidating them and discouraging them from working during the strike." And since these incidents were fully litigated at the hearing , it is proper for me to consider these in- find it unnecessary to reach the more difficult question of the IAM's responsibility for such conduct, which occurred in the absence of Mal- donado, for the reason that pickets subsequently engaged in similar con- duct in the presence of Maldonado for which conduct I hold the IAM responsible, and the order to be entered in this case would not be any dif- ferent were I to make the findings requested by the Company INTL. ASSOC OF MACHINISTS cidents . Stokely-Van Camp , Inc. and Bordo Products Co., d/b/a Stokely-Burdo , 130 NLRB 869, 872-873; N.L.R.B. v. Thompson Transport Co., Inc., 421 F.2d 154 (C.A. 10). As found above , Rafael Gonzalez was accosted by Maldonado and a number of other strikers in three cars as he was waiting for transportation to the plant in Rio Grande on November 6. Mal- donado , after making a threatening gesture towards Gonzalez , commenced chasing after Gonzalez who sought refuge in the nearby laundry of his father. Maldonado , who was joined by other strikers, con- tinued cursing and berating Gonzalez from outside the laundry until the police approached . Such con- duct by Maldonado and his cohorts plainly restrained and coerced Gonzalez in the exercise of his statutory rights and was violative of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. In the second incident , in which Maldonado was again accompanied by three carloads of strike sym- pathizers , Maldonado visited Arocho 's home in Rio Grande . On this occasion Maldonado sought to per- suade Arocho in the course of a short discussion to join the ranks of the strikers However, when Arocho refused , Maldonado threatened Arocho in thinly veiled terms that failure to join the strikers might be fatal to him. This whole incident, beginning with the arrival of about 25 men at the home of Arocho some miles from the plant and cul- minating in Maldonado 's veiled threat to have Arocho killed if he persisted in attempting to go to work , constituted another flagrant violation of Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Cf. United Mechanics' Union Local 150-F, 151 NLRB 386, 392-394. 3. The IAM's contentions The IAM admits that it supported the strike from its inception and that it is responsible for the con- duct of its special representative, Maldonado. But the IAM asserts that the evidence fails to establish that Maldonado engaged in any conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The facts sum- marized above which, except for the two incidents covered in section 2,d, are based upon the credited and undented testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses, establish that Maldonado himself en- gaged in numerous acts of restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8(b)(I)(A) The Respondent's contention in this regard is wholly without merit. With respect to the actions of the pickets during the strike, the IAM denies all responsibility therefor. In this connection the IAM relies on the testimony of Maldonado that he did not designate Baez, Matta, Hernandez, or any of the pickets as strike captains or strike leaders, that none of these pickets was a member or an officer of the IAM, ' Athough Maldonado used various channels in communications with employees before the strike, such as distributing leaflets, using the radio and mailing letters to the employees, Maldonado admittedly did not at- tempt to use any of these means of communications in an effort to disavow 1233 and that none received any strike donations from it. The [AM further cites Maldonado's testimony that he instructed the pickets orally not to commit acts of violence and informed them that both manage- ment officials and employees had a right to enter and leave the plant. With respect to the latter testimony, I cannot be- lieve that Maldonado sought to communicate to the pickets any effective instructions to this effect. Mal- donado's own conduct belies his testimony in this regard. As found above, Maldonado personally par- ticipated in the blocking of company officials' cars as they were attempting to enter the plant, Mal- donado personally threatened nonstriking em- ployees as they were attempting to enter the plant, and Maldonado was present during numerous in- cidents of misconduct by pickets but did not protest or attempt in any way to disassociate the IAM from what was going on.5 But even if instructions of some sort were given by Maldonado to the pickets, they obviously did not fulfill his obligation as an authorized represent- ative of the IAM to take steps reasonably calcu- lated to stop the misconduct which occurred in his presence. See the discussion in section 1 hereof. As indicated above, it is immaterial that the IAM may not have authorized the pickets to engage in the acts of misconduct found above. The IAM, by the inaction of its duly authorized agent, Mal- donado, when the pickets engaged in misconduct on the picket line in his presence, in effect adopted and ratified the conduct of the pickets The con- duct of the pickets on the picket line in the in- cidents discussed above followed the pattern thus established, or followed the example set by the ac- tions of Maldonado himself. The IAM's contention that it is not responsible for the actions of the pickets in the incidents discussed above is rejected. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By closing and padlocking the gates through which employees enter the plant, by blocking cars containing company officials from entering a plant gate, by throwing stones at company officials after they had attempted to cut open a gate to the plant, by attacking and damaging with rocks, clubs, and chains cars carrying company officials through a plant gate, and by chasing company officials who were leaving the plant and threatening them with bodily harm, the IAM has engaged in restraint and coercion of employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 2. By threatening employees seeking to enter or leave the plant with bodily harm to themselves or their families and with damage to their property, by menacing employees seeking to enter or leave the misconduct on the picket line Nor, as he further admitted , did Maldonado seek to use the loudspeaker which was available to him at times on the picket line, to prevent acts of misconduct which occurred in his presence 1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plant with clubs, sticks, or chains, by hitting em- ployees seeking to enter or leave the plant with sticks and clubs and throwing rocks, bottles, and other missiles at them, by chasing nonstriking em- ployees and threatening them with bodily harm, and by visiting the home of an employee under coercive circumstances and threatening him with bodily harm, the IAM has engaged in restraint and coercion of employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY In view of the serious nature and extent of the IAM's violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, my recommended order will direct the IAM not only to cease and desist from such conduct, but also to cease from in any otther manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their Sec- tion 7 rights. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER6 The Respondent, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and agents, including Juan L. Maldonado, shall: 1. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing employees of General Electric Company, Circuit Protective Devices Department, Caribe Plant Op- erations; General Electric Power Products, Inc., and General Electric Circuit Breakers, Inc., in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act (including the right to refrain from joining or assisting International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO) by (a) locking closed the gates to the plant of the above-named corporations or by erecting any other kind of physi- cal barrier across the entryways into the plant; (b) blocking ingress to and egress from the plant of em- ployees or officials and supervisors of the above- named corporations; (c) threatening or inflicting bodily harm upon employees or their families or upon officials and supervisors of the above-named corporations; (d) threatening or causing damage to the property of employees or of the above-named corporations; (e) chasing employees or officials or supervisors of the above-named corporations in an effort to prevent them from entering or leaving the plant; (f) making coercive visits to homes of em- ployees; and (g) or in any other manner. 2. Take the following affirmative action found necessary to effectuate the poicies of the Act: (a) Post in its business office and meeting hall signed copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix," together with a Spanish language transla- tion thereof,' on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive says thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to he Regional Director for Region 24 signed copies of attached notice, together with a Spanish language translation thereof, for posting by General Electric Company, Circuit Protective Devices Department, Caribe Plant Oerations; General Eectric Power Products, Inc., and General Electric Circuit Breakers, Inc., if they are willing, in places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice in Spanish and in English, to be furnished by said Regional Director, shall, after being signed by the Respond- ent as indicated, shall be forthwith returned for disposition by him. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " s In the event that this Recommended Order is 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." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guarantees all employees the right to join and assist labor unions and also the right , with certain excep- tions, to refrain from joining and assisting labor unions, and to refrain from participating in union activities , including strikes. WE WILL NOT restrain and coerce the em- ployees of General Electric Company, Circuit INTL. ASSOC OF MACHINISTS 1235 Protective Devices Department, Caribe Plant Operations; General Electric Power Products, Inc., and General Electric Circuit Breakers, Inc., in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. WE WILL NOT lock or close the gates to the plant of the above-named corporations and we will not place any other physical barriers across the gates to the plant. WE WILL NOT block employees or officials and supervisors of the above-named corpora- tions from entering or leaving the plant. WE WILL NOT threaten or inflict bodily harm upon employees or their families or upon offi- cials and supervisors of the above-name cor- porations. WE WILL NOT threaten or cause damage to the property of employees or of the above- named corporations. WE WILL NOT chase employees or officials or supervisors of the above-named corporations in an effort to prevent them from entering or leaving the plant. WE WILL NOT make coercive visits to homes of employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, AND ITS AGENT, JUAN L. MALDONADO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, Seventh Floor , Pan Am Building, 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 809-765-0404. 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 79 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation