New York Shipping Assoication

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 1, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 135 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 135
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS, AS
FOLLOWS : 1. STEAMSHIP LINES AND AGENTS: ALCOA
STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., AMERICAN EXPORT LINES,
INC., AMERICAN -HAWAIIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY,
AMERICAN -ISRAELI SHIPPING CO ., INC., AMERICAN
PRESIDENT LINES, LTD ., AMERICAN - WEST AFRICAN
LINE, INC., ANCHOR LINE, LTD ., ARGENTINE STATE
LINE, ATLANTIC OVERSEAS CORPORATION , BERCOVICI
NAVIGATION AGENCY, INC., BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES,
INC., BLACK DIAMOND STEAMSHIP CORP., BOISE-GRIF-
FIN STEAMSHIP CO., INC., BOOTH AMERICAN SHIPPING
CORPORATION , BOYD , WEIR & SEWELL , INC., BRISTOL
CITY LINE OR STEAMSHIPS , LTD., BULL-INSULAR LINE,
INC., CHILEAN LINE, COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING COM-
PANY , INC., CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY , LTD., DICH-
MANN, WRIGHT & PUGH , INC., EAST ASIATIC COMPANY,
INC., THOR ECKERT & COMPANY , INC., ELLERMAN'S
WILSON LINE NEW YORK , INC., JAMES W. ELWELL
& CO., INC., FARRELL LINES, INCORPORATED, FERN
LINE , FLOMARCY COMPANY, INC ., FRENCH LINE,
FUNCH, EDYE & CO., INCORPORATED , FURNESS, WITHY
& CO., LTD ., GARCIA & DIAZ INCORPORATED, GRACE
LINE INC., HELLENIC LINES, LTD., HOLLAND -AMERICA
LINE, INTERNATIONAL FREIGHTING CORPORATION,
INC., ISBRANDTSEN COMPANY, INC., ISTHMIAN STEAM-
SHIP COMPANY , KERR STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC.,
LLOYD BRASILEIRO , LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COM-
PANY, INC., MARINE TRANSPORT LINES, INC ., MOORE-
MC CORMACK LINES, INC., MOLLER STEAMSHIP COM-
PANY, INC., NEWTEX STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, NEW
YORK AND CUBA MAIL STEAMSHIP CO., NORTH AT-
LANTIC & GULF STEAMSHIP CO., INC., NORTON, LILLY
& COMPANY, NORWEIGIAN AMERICAN LINE AGENCY,
INC., PANAMA CANAL COMPANY , POPE & TALBOT, INC.,
PRUDENTIAL STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, QUAKER LINE,
INC., ROYAL NETHERLANDS STEAMSHIP COMPANY SEAS
SHIPPING COMPANY , INC., SEATRAIN LINES, INC ., SOUTH
ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP LINE, STATES MARINE CORPO-
RATION, STEVENSON LINE, INC., STOCKARD & COM-
PANY, INC., TORM LINES , TRANSPORTADORA GRAN-
COLOMBIANA , LTDA., UNION SULPHUR & OIL CORPO-
RATION, UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY , UNITED
STATES NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC., WATERMAN
STEAMSHIP CORPORATION , WESSEL , DUVAL & COMPA-
NY, INC., WEST COAST LINE, INC.; 2 . CONTRACTING
STEVEDORE MEMBERS : ALLPORTS STEVEDORING CO.,
INC., AMERICAN STEVEDORES , INC., AMERICAN SUGAR
REFINING COMPANY, ANCHOR STEVEDORING CO., INC.,
ASSOCIATED OPERATING CO., ATLANTIC STEVEDORING
CO., INC., BAY RIDGE OPERATING CO., INC., JOHN T.
CLARK & SON , CLEMENS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
108 NLRB No. 32.
1 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
COHAN CO., INC., COLUMBIA STEVEDORING COMPANY,
INC., COMMERCIAL STEVEDORING CO., INC., DANIELS
& KENNEDY, INC ., JOHN DOWD COMPANY , FEDERAL
STEVEDORING CO., INC., T. HOGAN & SONS, INC., M. P.
HOWLETT, INC., HURON STEVEDORING CORPORATION,
J. K. HANSON CONTRACTING CO., INC., IMPARATO
STEVEDORING CORP., INTERNATIONAL ELEVATING
COMPANY, THE JARKA CORPORATION , ADAM ED. KLEIN
STEVEDORING CORP., LOGUE STEVEDORING CORPO-
RATION, LONE STAR STEVEDORING , INC., MAHER STEVE-
DORING CORP ., MARRA BROS., INC., R. MARTORELLA
& CO., INC., JOHN W. MC GRATH CORPORATION , MERSEY
& HUDSON WHARFAGE CORPORATION , MORACE STEVE-
DORING CORPORATION, NICIREMA OPERATING CO., INC.,
ANTHONY O ' BOYLE, INC., A. PEI,iLEGRINO & SON, INC.,
PITTSTON STEVEDORING CORP., F. RINAL DI & COM-
PANY , M. J. RUDOLPH CO., INC., RYAN STEVEDORING
COMPANY, INC .. ROSAR SERVICE CORP ., SEABOARD CON-
TRACTING COMPANY, INC ., SEALAND DOCK & TER-
MINAL CORP., M. P. SMITH & SONS CO ., INC., JULES S.
SOTTNEK COMPANY , INC., STATES TERMINAL CORPO-
RATION , STEVEDORING EQUIPMENT , INC., STEVENSON
& YOUNG, INC ., TERMINAL STEVEDORING CO., INC.,
TRANSOCEANIC TERMINAL CORPORATION , TRIBORO
STEVEDORING CORP., TURNER & BLANCHARD, INC.,
UNITED STATES STEVEDORING CORP., UNIVERSAL TER-
MINAL & STEVEDORING CO., VIRGINIA STEVEDORING
CORPORATION , WEEKS STEVEDORING CO., INC., WHITE-
HALL TERMINAL CORP.; 3. CONTRACTING CARGO RE-
PAIRMEN : LYNCH , DONOHUE & DEE , INC.; 4 . CONTRAC-
TING CHECKER & CLERK MEMBERS : ALLIED MARI-
TIME SERVICES , INC., ANCHOR TERMINAL SERVICE
CO., INC., ATLANTIC PIERS CO., INC., BAYWAY TER-
MINAL CORPORATION , BEARD ' S ERIE BASIN, INC., DADE
BROTHERS, INC., DESPATCH TERMINAL CORPORATION,
FIFTH STREET PIER CORPORATION, HICKEY STEVE-
DORING CO ., INC., HAMILTON PIER CHECKERS, INC.,
PACKET SHIPPING CORPORATION , ROWLAND & LIESE-
GANG, INC., UNITED PORT SERVICE COMPANY ; 5. CON-
TRACTING MAINTENANCE MEMBERS : O'KANE MARINE
REPAIR COMPANY, KENT EQUIPMENT CORPORATION;
6. CONTRACTING MARINE CARPENTERS : ALPHA IN-
DUSTRIES LIFEBOAT , INC., BRENACK , INC., SERAFIM A.
CARVALHO , CHELSEA SHIP REPAIR CORPORATION,
COURT CARPENTRY CONTRACTING COMPANY, DAYTON
CONTRACTING CO., INC., DANIEL J. DEVANEY INC.,
FORE & AFT CONTRACTING CO., INC., E. G. GRIFFITH
COMPANY, INC., HAMILTON MARINE CONTRACTING CO.,
INC., FRANK J. HOLLERAN , HOOPER LUMBER CO., INC.,
KRIT LUMBER PRODUCTS INC., LEE & PALMER, MAR-
MARINE CONTRACTING COMPANY, MODERN MARINE
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 137
SERVICE CO., QUIN LUMBER CO., INC., TIMMINS LUMBER
CO. INC., WATERFRONT LUMBER CO. INC. (Various of
the foregoing are also sometimes referred to as members
of either the Deepwater Steamship Lines or as contracting
stevedores of the Port of Greater New York and Vicinity),
Petitioners 1 and INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S AS-
SOCIATION, INDEPENDENT, and AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSO-
CIATION.2 Case No. 2-RM-556 . April 1, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election' issued
by the Board on December 16, 1953, an election by secret
ballot was conducted on December 22 and 23, 1953, under the
supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region
among employees of the members of the New York Shipping
Association. The tally of ballots issued and served on the
parties on December 24, 1953, showed that the challenges
were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election.
On December 31, 1953, the AFL filed timely objections to
the election. On January 6, 1954, the AFL filed a motion
requesting that a tally of the challenged ballots be deferred
until the Board had made a determination with respect to its
objections.
On January 11, 1954, the Regional Director issued and
served on the parties his report on challenges and objections
in which he made recommendations with respect to the chal-
lenged ballots and the objections. As to the objections, the Re-
gional Director overruled some and recommended a hearing
with respect to those which alleged, in substance, that: (1) The
election was conducted in an atmosphere of organized fear,
violence, and intimidation; (2) supervisors of the Companies,
including some who were at the same time officials of the
Independent, participated in activity on behalf of the In-
dependent, on the dates of the election and during the
period immediately preceding it, and threatened employees
with economic reprisal if they did not vote for the In-
dependent; and (3) employees of the United Fruit Com-
pany, which is not a member of the Association and not
a party to this proceeding, were improperly included
in the eligibility list supplied by the Association and,
as a result, improperly voted without challenge on that ground.
On January 22, 1954, the Independent and the AFL, and on
January 25, 1954, the Association filed exceptions to the
'The New York Shipping Association and its members is hereinafter called the "Asso-
ciation"; the American Federation of Labor International Longshoremen's Association
is hereinafter called the "AFL"; and the International Longshoremen's Association, In-
dependent, is hereinafter called the "Independent."
2 Footnote 1, supra.
3New York Shipping Association, etc., 107 NLRB 364.
1 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director's report. On February 17, 1954, the Board
issued an Order in which it found that the matters set out
in (1) and (2), but not in (3), above, raised substantial and
material issues of fact which required a hearing for their
resolution. In its Order the Board also granted the AFL's
motion to defer a tally of the challenged ballots until the
Board has made a determination with respect to the conduct
affecting the results of the election.
A hearing was held at New York City between March 1
and March 18, 1954, before Arthur Leff, hearing officer. The
Independent, the AFL, and the Association appeared and were
represented by counsel. At the opening of the hearing, the
State of New York moved to intervene as a party to this
proceeding. The motion was denied by the hearing officer.
On appeal, the Board modified the hearing officer's ruling,
and directed that the State of New York, although not entitled
to the status of a formal party, should be permitted to par-
ticipate in the hearing with the right to present evidence and
to examine and cross - examine witnesses subject to rules
and restrictions determined by the hearing officer in his
discretion. All parties and the State of New York were
afforded an opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues.
On March 25, 1954, the hearing officer issued his report
and recommendations on objections to the election. In his
report, the hearing officer recommended, in effect, that the
objection alleging that supervisors of the Companies par-
ticipated in activity on behalf of the Independent on the dates
of the election and threatened employees with economic re-
prisal if they did not vote for the Independent (classified
under A, (2), in the Regional Director's report), be overruled.
The hearing officer recommended, however, that the objection
in which the AFL alleged, in substance, that the election
was conducted in an atmosphere of organized fear, violence,
and intimidation (classified under A, (1), in the Regional Di-
rector's report) be sustained, and that the election be set
aside. He further recommended that the Board order a new
election at the earliest possible date consistent with ad-
ministrative convenience.
On March 30, 1954, oral argument was heard by the Board,
in which counsel for the Independent, the AFL, the Association,
and the State of New York fully participated. On that day,
at the time of the oral argument, counsel for the Independent
stated to the Board that he was not excepting to the hearing
officer's factual findings but only to the interpretation that
the hearing officer placed therepn and to his recommendations.
The Independent filed no formal exceptions. The AFL filed
a brief and exceptions, its exceptions going only to those
findings and conclusions "as are adverse" to the AFL and to
the hearing officer's recommendation that the Board order an
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 139
election at the earliest possible date consistent with admin-
istrative convenience . The State of New York filed a brief.4
The Board has reviewed the hearing officer ' s rulings made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted . The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has
considered the hearing officer ' s report , the exceptions and
briefs, the oral argument, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby finds as follows:
The Conduct Affecting the-Results of the Election
The record is lengthy , and the facts and circumstances
attending the election of December 22 and 23, 1953, were
fully developed through testimony , exhibits , photographs,
and even five reels of motion pictures . We have given the
issues now before us thorough consideration , and because
we are fully aware of the gravity of the waterfront situation
and the need for prompt action, we are deciding this phase of
the case--as indeed we did earlier phases--without any delay.
The Board , like the hearing officer , would have been ex-
tremely hesitant in concluding that the conditions that existed
at the polling places and within their immediate vicinity in
Manhattan and Jersey City on December 22 warranted a finding
that the election be set aside. That some tension existed there
is understandable . Feelings run high in a contest such as
this. Intense partisanship manifests itself in an election of
this kind precisely as it does in a political election in which
rivalry is bitter . The Board is mindful , too, of the type of
employees who voted in this election , and recognizes fully
that standards of decorum vary, and that the waterfront is
not Park Avenue . For that reason, we are inclined to regard
the language quoted by the hearing officer from the General
Shoe decision apropos the situation now before us as something
less than felicitous . We should not think in terms purely
academic of ideal laboratory experiments or "requisite
laboratory conditions " in appraising this election for waterfront
employees . We feel , rather , that we must evaluate the cir-
cumstances with due regard to the realities , and consider the
type of employees , the size of the election , the bitterly contested
rival union, dispute, the total factual picture within the frame
of reference of which the election was held , and the many facts
and factors that necessarily must intrude themselves in
making a sound judgment.
With these general considerations in mind , we turn to the
specific allegations constituting the objections to the election,
as reflected in the testimony and exhibits and as analyzed
4 The State of New York also submitted a document entitled "Interim Report on Current
Work Stoppage," issued March 25, 1954, by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.
Counsel for the Association objected to the receipt of this report . As it is not part of the
evidence in this proceeding , the Board placed no reliance on it.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the hearing officer in establishing a basis for his recom-
mendations.
Viewing the occurrences at the polls and in their vicinity
in Manhattan and Jersey City as the hearing officer did, we
find it unnecessary to discuss the facts with respect to the
election in those areas. Suffice it to say that the hearing
officer's report adequately reflects the record, and that
no valid basis exists, in our opinion, for setting aside the
election insofar as occurrences or incidents at or near those
polling places are concerned.
A different view, however, must be taken of what transpired
in the vicinity of the Brooklyn polling place on December 23.
The facts are uncontradicted, and counsel for the Independent
at the outset of his oral argument before the Board on March 30
began by stating that he was not taking exception to the factual
findings of the hearing officer; only to the interpretations put
on those factual findings.
At the opening of the polls in Brooklyn, a Board agent and
representatives of the Independent and the AFL, at the sugges-
tion of the police inspector in charge of the police detail at
the polls, agrded that the full block of Prospect Avenue
between Fifth and Sixth Avenues be established as a "no
electioneering" area. Despite this arrangement, adherents
of the Independent were observed at different intervals elec-
tioneering not only in the prohibited area but even in the
polling place itself. Although the police outside the gate
leading to the polling place and Board agents inside the
voting area quickly and effectively removed violators, these
breaches kept recurring. A factor that addedtothe seriousness
of these occurrences was the unsavory reputation for crime
and violence of the Independent's adherents who were involved.
Among those found electioneering inside the polls were "Tony
Spanish" Calvo, George Paiszik, and "Red" Kane. Among
those observed electioneering immediately outside the gate
were "Tough Tony" Anastasia, Joseph Collazzo, Charles "Ba-
nanas" Coppolino, and "Tito" Balsano. Anastasia and Calvo s
were heard urging employees to vote for the Independent,
and adding significantly- -coming from individuals with their
reputation--"You know there isn't going to be any police
protection after today."
Early on the morning of December 23, a group of Independent
supporters from the Independent's "Pistol Local" in Manhattan
were observed at the intersection of 16th Street and Sixth Avenue
in Brooklyn. All wore the buttons or insignia of the Independent.
Included in the group, according to witnesses on the scene,
were Albert Ackalitis, Danny St. John, Joseph Silverman, John
5 The hearing officer in referring to Calvo's remarks erroneously described him as saying
to the voters that they had better vote AFL. The record and the hearing officer's own state-
ment earlier in his report clearly show that the reference was to the Independent and not to
the AFL.
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 141
Keefe, James Flood, Leslie Bell, and "Machine Gun" Camp-
bell--all men with reputations for violence on the waterfrort.
The presence of these men was fraught with impending danger.
A crucial incident occurred within a short time.
At about 10:30 a. m., a group of 50 to 100 Independent
adherents, at the direction of Ackalitis, attacked 6 members
of the Seafarers ' International Union who were engaged in
distributing AFL literature. One of the seamen, Brown,
testified: "They all came at us, they rushed at us. They
surrounded us, separated us, stomped us, kicked us, pushed us,
and half way down the block, they pushed us, pushed me
particularly, half way down the block." Three of the men,
Torras, McDonald, and Sweeney, received knife wounds and
required hospitalization. Brown took a knife away from one
of the assailants and turned it over to the police at the precinct
station. Danny St. John was names as one of the assailants.
Ackalitis who ordered the attack has since been a fugitive.
Within a few hours after this incident, and while many of
the voters were still going to the polls, newspapers were out
on the streets with headlines in bold type screaming of
stabbings and fists fights.
Later in the day, an AFL organizer, Massa, was seized
by two men who tore off the AFL electioneering sign that he
was carrying and sent him sprawling to the ground. About
10 minutes later , one of Massa ' s attackers, a public loader
identified with the Independent, forced another AFL organizer,
Ventre, to stop the car he was driving and ripped the AFL
banner off the car . Two other assaults were reported to the
police but the identity of the assailants was not extablished.
AFL literature was on several occasions snatched from voters'
hands by Ackalitis and others . Brown, the seaman, later
snatched a knife from one of the attacking group, was chased
while passing out AFL literature by the Ackalitis-St. John
group, and warned that if he passed out any more leaflets
"they would shove it down his throat." Evidence of the back-
ground of violence that manifested itself can be found in Brown's
testimony that passengers alighting from two of the Inde-
pendent ' s buses told some of the Independent ' s supporters
who offered them literature in the mistaken belief that they
were early arriving voters that "We didn't come down here
to vote. We came to straighten out these sons-of-bitches."
The testimony of Captain Bradley, president of the In-
dependent, before the Kings County grand jury on January 6
and 7 , 1954 --in evidence in this proceeding --is most revealing
in establishing the authority and relationship of the various
participants in these events . Bradley was at a midtown Man-
hattan hotel on December 23 when he received a telephone
call from Anastasia to the effect that "we are having a little
trouble; some of the boys got a shellacking ." Bradley replied,
`Well, if they want to play that way, we can play that way too.
I'll send over three or four hundred." He told the grand jury
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he had seen Ackalitis and St. John near the Brooklyn polling
place that morning and that he was aware of their criminal
backgrounds and reputations, but when asked why he had not
removed them from the scene of the election, replied, "or-
ganizationwise it would not be right." Although Bradley testified
that despite his statement about sending "three or four hundred"
men he had not in fact done so, he testified further that about
100 men, without direction from him, had gone from Man-
hattan to the Brooklyn voting area. Testimony by another witness
at the hearing in this proceeding independently established that
about 100 nonvoters arrived by bus near the Brooklyn polling
place and engaged in a demonstration for the Independent which
required dispersal by the police. Bradley's grand jury testimony
sheds light on the report that had spread throughout the
Brooklyn election area that the Independent was 'bringing in
several hundred reinforcements from Manhattan.
Applying as we indicated earlier in this decision a realistic
yardstick with a complete regard for the specific exigencies
of this case, we have no choice but to reach the conclusion
that the hearing officer reached. In doing so, we, too, have
serious doubt as to the correctness of the position of the
State of New York and the AFL that mere presence in nonre-
stricted areas of union officials or adherents with unsavory
reputations--even where no overt acts are alleged or shown--
requires that an election be set aside. But in the light of the
uncontradicted evidence as to what occurred at the Brooklyn
pollirof area, we are not called upon to pass on that contention
here. The incidents described here, and detailed with greater
specificity in the hearing officer's report, make it abundantly
clear that this election was held in an atmosphere that, in
the language of Board decisions dealing with objections to
conduct affecting elections, was not conducive to the kind of
free and unintimidated choice of representative which the Act
contemplates.6 Accordingly, we find merit in the objection,
classified in the Regional Director's report as A, (1), and shall
direct that the election be set aside.
Our judgment, we wish to make it clear, is not swayed by
efforts at melodrama in overstating the situation or in the
recurring repetition of names of individuals with unwholesome
backgrounds and picturesque aliases. On the contrary, it was
with the utmost deliberation and careful scrutiny of all the
facts that we reach this conclusion because the setting aside
an election of this size and importance in the circumstances
6Diamond State Poultry Company, 107 NLRB 3; Bloomingdale Bros., Inc., 87 NLRB
1326; Stern Brothers, 87 NLRB 16; G H. Hess, Inc., 82 NLRB 463; P. D. Gwaltney Jr.
R Co., 74 NLRB 367; Detroit Creamery Co., 60 NLRB 178.
In view of the disposition made herein, we find no need for passing on the other grounds
urged by the AFL and the State of New York for setting aside the election, e. g., the inclusion
of the United Fruit Company employees in the eligibility list and the announcement on the
eve of the election with respect to an increase in welfare benefits. For like reasons, there
is no longer any necessity for passing on the challenged ballots.
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 143
that prevail at the New York waterfront is one of grave concern
not only to us, who are entrusted with the effectuation of the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, but also to the
people of New York and New Jersey, and the rest of the Nation
as well.
The Holding of a New Election
The hearing officer recommended that the Boardorder a new
election at the earliest possible date consistent with administra-
tive convenience . The AFL excepted to this recommendation
and urged instead that an election be held at such time as the
Board or the Regional Director determines that there no longer
exists an atmosphere of intimidation , coercion , and violence.
The State of New York, by its counsel at oral argument, tock
the position that a new election be conducted only after it
is ascertained " that tranquility has been restored to the port,
and a reasonable time, probably at least 30 days, has elapsed
since the present work stoppage ceases."
The Board in its original decision in this proceeding pointed
out that "this is a situation that is uniquely within the province
of the Board's jurisdiction , for it is the Board , and the Board
alone, that can invoke the kind of machinery that Congress
designed specifically for the resolution of a rival union dispute
such as we have here. It is a set of circumstances like those
that make what ordinarily seems to be stereotyped language,
i.e., the effectuation of the policies of the Act, "take on real
life and validity." The Board underscored the fact that "the
crux of the entire problem is the unresolved representation
question," and referred specifically to the report of the
President's board of inquiry, dated December 4, 1953, which
stated that "This dispute is unique in the history of emergency
disputes since the statute was enacted in 1947, because the es-
sential differences which seem to be leading to a renewed
shutdown on the waterfront are not between the employers and
their employees but rather between the two labor organizations
which are bitterly contesting the right to represent the em-
ployees . The issue of union representation overshadows all
others." ( Emphasis added.)
The words just quoted are as apropos today as they were 4
months ago . The issue of union representation must be
resolved , and the Board as the administrative arm of the
Federal Government that has the sole responsibility for
resolving that issue does not intend to avoid its responsibility,
either by equivocation or by hiding behind overtechnical ex-
planations . A new election must be held in order to settle
the question concerning representation without delay.
We are fully aware of the problems that such a new election
entails and have given serious consideration to the statements
expressed by the AFL and the State of New York . We propose
to meet these problems by incorporating special provisions
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the order directing a new election herein that will, in our
opinion, assure reasonably adequate conditions for the holding
of such an election.
We have not been unmindful of the statements that have been
made by the officials of the Independent in the period following
the election, and the walkouts and work stoppage's that have taken
place on the waterfront of the Port of New York within recent
weeks, indeed to this very day. When at the oral argument on
March 30, the Board Chairman asked whether the current
strike was "an official ILA Independent strike," counsel for
the Independent replied that "it is now presently an official
strike." When the Chairman inquired as to the objective of
the strike, counsel for the Independent replied, "As has been
expressed by the president of the group, the strike is to get
a certification, a recognition . . . it is a strike for a contract
I would say." This explanation was not unique; it has been
reflected in many of the public utterances of the top officials
of the Independent. Under the circumstances, we have no
alternative except to regard the position of the Independent
as one designed to thwart the processes of the Board not
only by engaging in coercive conduct directed at employees
found sufficient to warrant setting aside the election but by
engaging in a form of coercion directed against the Board
itself in calling a strike to compel certification in the face
of a pending unresolved question concerning representation.
Such conduct, in our considered judgment, amounts to an abuse
of the Board's processes, and calls for appropriate action
on the part of the Board. Furthermore, we would consider it
most inequitable to the outer parties to this proceeding, and
particularly to the employees of the members of the Asso-
ciation who are entitled to a speedy resolution of the rep-
resentation question, if we permitted the Independent, by its
conduct, to frustrate the Board in the application of its pro-
cedures as intended by Congress.
Accordingly, we shall provide that anew election be conducted;
that the Board will fix a date based on an investigation and
finding on its part that the circumstances permit a free
choice of bargaining representative; that a maximum time limi-
tation be placed for the holding of the new election; and that
if the Independent does not cease and desist forthwith to engage
in conduct designed to thwart or abuse the processes of the
Board, the Board will hold the election, but in the exercise
of the discretion it has under the Act to guarantee the integrity
of its processes and procedures, will deny the Independent
a place on the ballot.
In announcing our disposition of this problem we wish to make
it clear that if any other union in this proceeding engages in
similar tactics, it, too, will be treated in like manner.
It is our firm belief that in this way we shall achieve
the objective of resolving the question concerning representation
without unnecessary delay and at the same time establish
safeguards that will make a new election possible.
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 145
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election heretofore held
herein on December 22 and 23, 1953, be and the same hereby
is set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a new election be conducted
at such time as the National Labor Relations Board determines
that the circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining
representative; that the election date be scheduled no later
than 30 days from the date of this Supplemental Decision and
Order; and that if the Board administratively determines that
the International Longshoremen's Association, Independent,
has failed forthwithto cease and desist from engaging in conduct
designed to thwart or abuse the processes of the Board, it shall
conduct the election, but shall not accord the International Long -
shoremen's Association, Independent, a place on the ballot.
If any other labor organization engages in similar or related
conduct, it shall be accorded like treatment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Regional Director for the
Second Region forthwith enter into appropriate arrangements
with the State and municipal authorities to assure reasonably
adequate conditions for the holding of a new election, and shall
report thereon to the board within 5 days from the date of this
Order.
Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Order.
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ON OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE'
On December 22 and 23, 1953, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election issued
by the Board on December 16, 1953, an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-
entitled matter under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second
Region, New York City. The tally of ballots issued and served on the parties on December 24,
1953, showed that the challenges were sufficientmnumber to affect the results of the election.
On December 31, 1953, the AFL filed timely objections to the election, and on January 6,
1954, the AFL filed a motion requestmgthata talley of the challenged ballots be deferred until
the Board had made a determination with respect to its objections.
On January 11, 1954, the Regional Director issued and served on the parties his report on
challenges and objections. In the report, he made recommendations with respect to the chal-
lenged ballots. While overruling certain of the AFL objections, the Regional Director rec-
ommended that a hearing be held on threeof them. Those on which a hearing was recommended
alleged in substance that: (1) The election was conducted in an atmosphere of organized fear,
violence, and intimidation; (2) supervisors of the Companies, including some who were at
the same time Independent officials, participated in activity on behalf of the Independent on
'International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, is hereinafter called the In-
dependent and, at times, the ILA; the American Federation of Labor, International Longshore-
men's Association is hereinafter called the AFL; and the New York Shipping Association
is hereinafter called the Association.
339676 0 - 55 - 11
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the date of the election and during the period immediately preceding it, and threatened em-
ployees with economic reprisal if they did not vote for the Independent; and (3) employees
of the United Fruit Company, which is not a member of the Association and not a party to
the instant proceeding, were improperly included in the eligibility list supplied by the
Association and, as a result, improperly voted without challenge on that ground.
On January 22, 1954, the Independent filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report
concerning the three objections specifically referred to above, and to his recommendation
for a hearing thereon. The AFL on the same day filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
disposition, adverse to it, of another of its objections relating to the eligibility lists, classified
in the report as B,3. It also excepted to the recommended classification and disposition of the
challenged ballots set forth in the report. On January 25, 1954, the Association filed excep-
tions to so much of the Regional Director's report as dealt with the subject of supervisors'
conduct and an alleged interlocking relationship between Association members and the Inde-
pendent through Company agents and supervisors.
On February 17, 1954, the Board issued an Order directing hearing on objections to election.
In the Order, the Board found that the matters set out under A (1) and (2) of the Regional
Director's report--relating to the AFL objections that have been classified above as (1) and
(2)--raised substantial and material issues of fact, requiring a hearing for their resolution,
as recommended by the Regional Director. However, in disagreement with the Regional
Director, the Board found no substantial or material issue of fact raised by the objection
relating to the inclusion of United Fruit Company employees in the eligibility list since,
as it found, "employees of that Company were clearly not included in the associationwide
unit found appropriate by the Board." However, in finding that no need for a hearing existed
with respect to that objection, the Board at the same time emphasized that it was not thereby
"passing on the effect that the inclusion of the employees of the United Fruit Company may
have had on the election." In its order the Board also granted the AFL motion to defer a tally
of the challenged ballots until the Board had made a determination with respect to the conduct
affecting the results of the election. In ordering that a hearing be held to take evidence as to
the objections numbered A (1) and A (2) of the Regional Director's report, and the exceptions
thereto, the Board directed that the hearing be conducted by a Trial Examiner assigned by
the Chief Trial Examiner, and further directed that the Examiner so designated should pre-
pare and serve upon the parties his report and recommendations to the Board as to the dis-
position of the said objections and exceptions.
Pursuant to notice, and in conformity with the aforesaid Order, a hearing was held at
New York City between March 1 and March 18, 1954, before the undersigned, Arthur Leff,
a Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner as the hearing officer to
conduct the hearing on objections. All parties to this proceeding appeared and were repre-
sented by counsel at the hearing. at the opening of the hearing, the State of New York moved
to intervene as a party to this proceeding. The motion was denied by the hearing officer.
On appeal, the Board modified the hearing officer's ruling, and directed that the State of
New York, although not entitled to the status of a formal party, should be permitted topar-
ticipate in the hearing with the right to present evidence and to examine and cross-examine
witnesses subject to rules and restrictions determined by the hearing officer in Ills discretion.
All parties and the State of New York were afforded opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
Near the close of the hearing, the AFL moved to amend its objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election, by adding thereto an allegation that, with the deliberate intention
of influencing the election and as a result of a conspiracy between the Association and the
Independent to aid and abet intimidation being exerted upon longshoremen during the course
of the election, a public announcement was made on the eve of the election and brought to the
attention of longshoremen in the Port of New York, that pension benefits under an Independent-
Association jointly managed welfare plan had been increased and would be paid, retroactively
to September 1, 1953, to employees entitled thereto. The hearing officer referred the AFL
motion to the Board for its consideration at the time it considers the record of this hearing.
Evidence offered by the AFL to support the proposed amendment was ruled inadmissible
by the hearing officer upon the ground that it was outside the scope of the issues of the
particular objections upon which the hearing was directed. However, to avoid any delay
that might otherwise be necessitated byapossible remand, the hearing officer, with the agree-
ment of the parties, accepted an offer of proof in such form as to allow the Board to consider
the proposed amendment on its merits without further testimony, in the event the Board
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 147
decides to grant the proposed amendment or otherwise to consider such matter under the
issues as so framed.2
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived the opportunity afforded them to argue
orally upon the, record, and elected instead to file briefs . Briefs were received from the
Independent , the AFL, the State of New York, and the Association on March 24, 1954.-They
have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses , the hearing
officer makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. General
The election was held in three places. On December 22, 1953, polling by secret ballot was
conducted at the Polish Community Center in Jersey City and at the United States Government
Building in the Borough of Manhattan, and on December 23, 1953, at Prospect Hall in the
Borough of Brooklyn. The election hours were from 6 a. m. to 10 p. m. at all three places.
At the end of the balloting in Jersey City, the Independent and AFL official observors, along
with the representative of the RegionalDirector,signedthe Board's usual form of certification
on conduct of election, certifying that the "balloting was fairly conducted, that all eligible
voters were given an opportunity to vote their ballots in secret, and that the ballot box was
protected in the interest of a fair and secret vote." A like certification was signed by Man-
hattan observors for both Unions, as well as by the Regional Director's representatives with
regard to the election in Manhattan. No such certification was signed, however, at least by the
AFL representatives, with respect to the balloting in Brooklyn.
The election followed by but about 3 weeks the effective date--December 1, 1953--of the
licensing and registration provisions of the New York;New Jersey Waterfront Commission
Compact.3 That law stemmed in large measure from the investigation and recommendations
of the New York State Crime commission respecting the New York waterfront.4 As revealed
in that report, and as also established at least in part by independent testimony in this case,
the Port of New York had long been infected with unscrupulous practices and undisciplined
procedures, many criminal and quasi -criminal in nature , traceable in large measure to the
domination by known and reputed criminals of important ILA locals and key waterfront
areas, as well as to control of waterfront hiring that in many instances had been exercised
by pier superintendents and hiring agents, who, though in form agents of the shipping com-
panies, were in fact identified, in some instances even as officials, with ILA locals and the
criminal elements that dominated them. It was largely to eliminate from the New York
waterfront scene the criminal elements and corrupt practices that infested it, and to remove
the fear, intimidation, and insecurity of waterfront employees bred by criminal rule, that
the Waterfront Commission Compact was enacted, requiring, inter alia, on and after December
1, 1953, the licensing of pier superintendents and hiring agents and the registration of
longshoremen.
In determining voting eligibility in its Decision and Direction of Election, the Board imposed
as a requirement that an employee within the appropriate unit, to be eligible, must have
worked more than 700 hours during the year ending September 30, 1953. An additional
requisite specified was that employees subject to registration must have been registered
with the Waterfront Commission in the manner provided by its regulations. The notice of
election, in addition to setting forth the other eligibility requirements, stipulated that long-
shoremen, checkers, clerks, and timekeepers would be required to show their Waterfront
Commission registration cards as a condition to voting.
2 The offer of proof is in the form of a stipulation of facts, supplemented by testimony- -
ruled irrelevant but considered as an offer of proof--of Joseph Mayper, counsel for the As-
sociation In view of the position taken by the hearing officer on the question of relevancy,
he makes no findings in this report on whether the profferred evidence supports the allegation
in the proposed amendment.
3 Public Law 252, 83rdCong., Chapter 407, First Session (S. 2382). approved August 12, 1953
4See Fourth Report of the New York State Crime Commission, Legislative Document
(1953) No 70. A copy of the report is in evidence as an exhibit in this case.
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. As to the objection alleging that supervisors , including
some who were at the same time Independent officials,
participated in activity on behalf of the Independent,
and threatened employees with reprisal if they did
not vote for the Independent
This objection will be considered first because there is relatively little evidence on the issue
raised by it, and it is one that can be quickly disposed of.
There is some evidence that former hiring bosses identified with the Independent --notably
Anthony ("Tony Spanish") Calvo of Brooklyn--who ceased to function as such after December
1, 1953, because of lack of validation by the Waterfront Commission , engaged in electioneering
activities in behalf of the Independent. I do not consider such evidence, however, as falling
within the scope of this particular objection. Concerning those who were still supervisors,
or claimed to be, at the time of their alleged improper activities , the testimony submitted
in support of this objection was confined to the following:
1. Alphonse Iapicca, a longshore organizer for the AFL, testified that at pier 5 in Hoboken,
where the Jarko Corporation performs stevedoring services, he overheard Captain Wyple,
the terminal manager, commend Independent delegates for bringing to the pier on time the
Independent chartered buses that were to take employees to the polling place . He further
testified that, as employees were boarding one of the buses, he heard Captain Wyple remark,
"Don't forget boys, ILA." Wyple denied making the statements attributed to him by Iapicci,
and his denial, corroborated by the testimony of another witness called by the Association,
is credited. lapicci also testified that one, "Big Mike, " whom he identified as the loft boss
on the pier , boarded the bus and distributed to fellow passengers cards bearing the legend,
"Vote ILA." His testimony in that respect stands undenied and is accepted . "Big Mike"--
Michael Russo --has no direct hiring and firing authority , is not employed on a weekly basis
by the Jarko Corporation, must himself "shape up" for hiring each morning, and occupies the
category generally of a gang foreman. Though his position does not require licensing as
a hiring agent, he is validated to the Company by the Waterfront Commission as a foreman.
The record sufficiently supports a finding, here made, that he possesses the attributes of a
supervisory employee within the definition of the Act in that he responsibly directs the work
of employees under him and his recommendations as to discharge are given effective weight.
2. Michael Gallagher, a longshoreman, who on the date of the election was employed
at pier 2, Bush Terminal, operated by John W. McGrath Company, testified that as he left the
pier at noon that day to go to vote, he heard Michael Clementi, the stevedore foreman,5
tell the men to get on the ILA chartered bus which had come to the pier to provide trans -
portation to the polling place, to vote ILA, and not to worry when they got back. Under an
election arrangement , stevedoring companies were to release longshoremen for 2 hours
on the election date in order to permit them to vote. Gallagher testified he understood
Clementi's remark about not worrying to mean that if the men took more than 2 hours
it would be all right. Clementi, an admitted hiring agent, who was a member of the ILA
prior to the Waterfront Commission licensing requirements , denied making the statements
attributed to him. His denial, however, is not credited.
3. Adronicus Jacobs, a longshoreman, who on the date of the election worked at piers
15 and 16 in Brooklyn, operated by Moore-McCormick lines, testified that before Doaraing
the bus provided by the ILA to go to the polls that day, he was told by Soto Quatrocci, whom
he identified as a foreman, that it was a "lot of politics," that the AFL could not win, that
those who felt that way would be jeopardizing their ,lobs, that the men knew the ILA but not
the AFL, and that if the AFL got in, the seamen would get their jobs. On earlier occasions,
according to Jacobs, Quatrocci had also expressed like views. The Association called
Quatrocci as a witness primarily to take issue with Jacobs' assertion that he was a super-
visor. Although not questioned on that point on direct examination, Quatrocci on cross denied
that he ever talked to anyone about the election, and disclaimed knowing Jacobs. His testimony
in that respect is not credited . There is a serious question , however, as to Quatrocci 's super-
visory status. Quatrocci occupies the classification of hatch boss, a classification that appears
in the twilight zone, and on the supervisory status of which the Board did not expressly pass
in its Decision and Direction of Election. The record shows that, as hatch boss, Quatrocci
5 The Michael Clementi in question is not the person of the same name who is an ILA official.
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 149
has some responsibility in assigning and directing work of others in his gang, and seldom
does any manual work himself. However, like those in his group, he must "shape up"
for work each morning. Quatrocci is registered with the Waterfront Commission as a long-
shoreman. His name did not appear on the list of supervisory employees provided by the
Association for use at the election. Quatrocci himself voted in the election, and voted without
challenge.
4. Frank Piscopo, a longshoreman who is now an AFL organizer, testified without denial
that he was present at the United States army base in Staten Island when ILA buses were
being loaded to take voters to the polls; that various ILA officials, including Alex Di Brizzi,
the president of the Independent local, were present at the time helping load the buses while
shouting slogans for the ILA; that also present with them and engaged in like activity were
Billy Antigo, a hatch boss , and Jerry Mattera, the general hiring foreman; and that Mattera
told the men as they were boarding the bus, "Don't forget, if you're going to work in this
place, vote ILA all the way."
In connection with this objection, it is to be noted that at a meeting of the Association
Conference Committee, held on December 18, 1953, a resolution was adopted that employer
members advise their supervisory employees that they must maintain strict neutrality in
the election campaign. Employer members were also requested to post on their bulletin
boards a notice to employees that it was the policy and desire of the Association and the
employer that employees express their own free choice as to their bargaining representative,
and also directing employees not to engage in electioneering on the pier for or against either
union. There is evidence that the instructions referred to in the resolution were given to
supervisors employed by the Jarko Corporation and that the suggested notice to employees
was posted at the piers of that Company. There is also evidence indicating that no such in-
structions were given or notice posted by the McGrath Company, at least at the pier at which
Clementi was hiring foreman. The extent to which the Association's resolution was carried
out by other member companies is not revealed.
The -record on this phase of the case, considered as a whole, fails in my opinion to justify
a conclusion of employer interference with the election through coercive conduct of super-
visory employees. The activity of "Big Mike" Russo and Clementi, while reflecting their
support of the ILA, would appear to fall within the area of privileged noncoercive expressions
of views, arguments, and opinions. Thesamelthink is true of the remarks made by Quatrocci,
even if he be regarded as a supervisory employee. Though Quatrocci did refer to the fact
that employees might be jeopardizing their jobs if they voted for the AFL, that remark con-
sidered in context with his others appears to be in the nature of a prediction, given to support
his overall argument, of what the AFL would do if it won an election victory, and not a threat
of employer reprisal. The only clear evidence of a coercive remark by a supervisory em-
ployee is found in Jerry Mattera 's assertion to employees at the army base, in the presence
of ILA officials, implying that their jobs were dependent upon an Independent victory. Because
it stands in isolation, I do not think it sufficient to sustain the particular objection here under
consideration, which essentially involves a question of employer interference. Consequently,
I shall recommend that the objection, classified by the Regional Director as A, (2), be
overruled.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that Mattera's remark should be disregarded entirely. It was
made by a hiring boss, who, though he had recently resigned from the Independent to qualify
for a license, had long been identified with that organization, and was in fact still identifying
himself with it in participating jointly with Independent officials in their election activities
at the moment the remark was made. For that reason, and because Mattera was still in
a position to control hiring, T think Mattera's remark is properly to be considered in the
context of facts related to the AFL's other objection to be taken up next. Nor in that context
is its impact to be minimized--for the army base at which Mattera was hiring boss had
perhaps the greatest concentration of longshoremen in the entire Port of New York.
C. As to the objection that the election was conducted in an
atmosphere of organized fear, violence , and intimidation
1. The evidence
a. At Jersey City
The polling at Jersey City was conducted on December 22, 1953 , between the hours of 6 a. m.
and 10 p. m. at the Polish Community Center , 355 Grove Street . The entrance to the building
1 50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in which the polling was conducted is located on the west side of Grove Street, somewhat
north of Bay Street which intersects Grove Street in an east-west direction. According to
a stipulation entered into by the parties . no express "no-electioneering" limits were fixed
by the Board agents conducting the election, although an announcement was made that a rule
of reason would be followed. It appears, however, that such limits were fixed by the police.
Under a regulation promulgated by the police there was to be no electioneering or loitering
on the sides of Grove and Bay Streets where the Polish Community Center was located. The
restricted sides of these streets were not , however , closed to pedestrians , and representatives
of the competing Unions were allowed to pass through provided the police regulations were
not otherwise violated. There was considerable electioneering by both sides at the southwest,
southeast, and northeast corners of Grove and Bay. The vicinity of the polling place was heavily
policed during the entire election period, with from 17 to 28 police officers present up to
9:30 p. m. At that time the number was augmented to 42, after an additional emergency squad
was summoned , as will hereinafter more fully appear.
There is no claim that any irregularities occurred inside the polling area at any time.
There is a claim that Independent representatives and adherents at times violated the "no-
electioneering" restrictions set by the police. To support it, some evidence was presented
showing that on a number of occasions Independent partisans , numbering at times as many as
5 or 6 , would cross Bay Street into the restricted zone to meet arriving buses and exhort
voters to support the Independent. Among those observed by AFL witnesses to have engaged
in such activity, or to have arrived in buses bringing in voters, were Nick Maschucci, presi-
dent of ILA Local 1217, a New Jersey local, and John "Ziggie" Seamon, a former official
of that local and until the effective date of the licensing provisions of the Waterfront Com-
mission Compact a hiring boss inthearea. Both Maschucci and Seamon have criminal records
and reputations among longshoremen for force and violence . There is no evidence that they or
others who rode in or met the buses threatened voters or physically interfered with them in
any way. Whenever ILA adherents crossed into the restricted area, AFL representatives
would complain to the police, and the converse would also be true. When the attention of the
police was directed to such trespassing , the police were diligent in directing the trespassers
back to the unrestricted zone. So far as appears, the directions of the police were obeyed
without resistance. Evidence was also presented by the AFL that Nick Maschucci, Ziggy
Seamon, and John A. Bushen, a top official of ILA Local 1247 were frequently observed walk-
ing up and down on the side of the street where the polling place was located . The evidence
does not, however, show that they ever loitered in that zone or engaged in electioneering.
The police officer witnesses who were questioned on that point testified that they made no
attempt to bar Maschucci or others from passing by the building because the street was open
and restrictions had been imposed by the police only against electioneering and loitering.
On the street corners outside the restricted zone , there was considerable electioneering by
each of the rival factions. As the day wore on the Independent adherents concentrated on one
corner, with Maschucci and Ziggy Seamon prominent in their midst, and the AFL adherents
on another. Both sides shouted their respective slogans, such as "ILA all the way," and
"Don't forget the AFL."
There was no outbreak of violence or actual disturbance throughout the day, no arrest, and
no complaint lodged with the police--except for those relating to the occasional trespassing
of "no electioneering" limits. The several police officers who testified' all agreed that the
general condition of the area was orderly and one of them, Captain Edward, described it as
"perfect."
AFL witnesses referred to but two incidents' involving direct threats. Leonard Ladagona,
an AFL organizer, testified without denial that at about 3 p. m., he observed an Independent
proponent cross into the restricted zone and solicit voters in line to support the Independent.
Ladagona protested to a police sergeant and, as a result, the sergeant ordered the Independent
solicitor out of the restricted area, and Ladagona with him. As Ladagona crossed to the unre-
stricted side of the street, he ran into Micky Maschucci who angrily said to him, " I am going
to blow your ... brains out when this is over." Others in Maschucci's group, including one
of Maschucci's brothers, promptly echoed Nicky's sentiments, threatening Ladagona with
physical violence at some later time. T
6They were Captain Thomas J. Dunn, who was in charge of the election detail, Captain
Edward, who is in charge of the Jersey City waterfront squad, and Detective Robert Clark
of the waterfront squad. All were called by the Independent.
TLadagona, like Maschucci, has a criminal record.
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 151
The other incident referred to occurred at about 8 p m., when , according to the undisputed
testimony of Adrian Di Lange, another AFL organizer, an unidentified person with an ILA
button in a car passing the corner on which the AFL contingent was situated , shouted out
to those on the corner that they had better get out of town if they did not want anything to
happen.
After this incident , and as the polling neared its close , there was a mounting tension and a
swelling of the crowds of Independent and AFL adherents on their respective corners At
about 9 30 p in , the total crowd had grown to about 400 Voting at that time was light,
if not virtually at a standstill , but that was because of the lateness of the hour and not because
of any obstruction placed in the path of voters desiring to make their way to the polling place
Though no actual disturbance occurred , the police officers in charge , as a precautionary
measure, summoned an extra emergency squad of about 14 to augment the existing detail.
The polls closed without further incident , and after the closing the crowds dispersed.
b Manhattan
Balloting at Manhattan took place between the hours of 6 a in. and 10 p. m at the United
States Government Building located at 250 Hudson Street The entrance to the voting area was
on the east side of Hudson Street, about 120 feet south of Dominick Street and about 80 feet
north of Broome Street The street intersecting Hudson Street , north of Dominick Street, is
Spring Street, which is about 280 feet north of the place at which the entrance to the voting
was located . " No electioneering" limits were established on Hudson Street , to the south
at the location of a gas station about 180 feet from the polling entrance , and to the north at
a point marked on a survey in evidence as "stoop ," about 180 feet north of the polling entrance.
The stoop is about 100 feet south of the southeast corner of Hudson and Spring Most voters
coming into the area approached from the north . Those coming from that direction by foot
had to pass the corner of Spring and Hudson . The buses drove by that corner , although they
discharged to the south nearer the polling area . The vicinity of the voting area was heavily
policed during the election period with a uniformed squad under an inspector which began with
2 sergeants , 20 patrolmen , and 4 mounted men, and to which there was later assigned 10
additional patrolmen as the crowds grew heavier due to voters remaining in the area There
was also an undetermined number of detectives assigned to cover the voting area
The record reflects two incidents of irregularity within the voting area itself, both testified
to without contradiction by George McMahon, one of the election observors for the AFL. About
4 p in , according to McMahonwhomlcredit , he heard a commotion and, looking up, observed
Thomas "Teddy" Gleason, business agent of ILA Local 1346 as well as an International
representative , leaning against a pillar and now and then accosting voters . McMahon left
his table to lodge a protest but could not find the AFL representative in charge on his return,
he observed Gleason being evicted from the room About a half hour after the Gleason incident,
McMahon testified further , he observed Jerry Hicky, the business agent of ILA Local 1258,
inside the polling place, speaking to voters on line He reported Hicky's presence to a Board
agent and arranged to have him evicted As appears from the testimony of Father John M.
Corridan , associate director of the Xavier Institute of Local Relations , and widely known as
the "waterfront priest," both Gleason and Hicky are reputed to be connected with the criminal
element on the New York waterfront . It appears that neither Gleason nor Hicky was eligible
to vote in the election No effort was made by the Independent to explain or justify their
presence in the polling place.
There is no other evidence of improper activity, electioneering or otherwise, anywhere within
the area zoned against electioneering
Outside that area , there was considerable electioneering by both sides, including the handing
out of literature and shouting of campaign slogans . But throughout the day, there was no dis-
turbance , no incident calling for police action, no arrest , and no complaint lodged with the
police . William F McQuade , deputy chief inspector of the New York Police Department,
who heads the uniformed force for Manhattan West, described the electioneering in Manhattan
as no different from that in a normal municipal election , except that the people in the area
were greater in number . It does not appear that any eligible person desirous of casting
a ballot was physically obstructed from doing so
Present in the vicinity of the voting area throughout the day were a number of individuals
who, at least by reputation , have long been identified with the criminal elements found by the
New York State Crime Commission to dominate certain ILA locals and waterfront areas
Among those placed on the scene by undisputed evidence in the form of motion and still pictures
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were Albert Ackalitis, Daniel St John, Gerald Weir, Charlie "Bananas" Coppolino, and Joseph
Silverman . Most , if indeed not all of them , were ineligible to vote. No explanation was offered
by the independent for their presence in the vicinity of the voting area. All those mentioned
have criminal records and reputations among longshoremen for force and violence, Ackalitis
and St. John being particularly notorious as vicious hoodlums. At the election scene, those
referred to identified their connection with the Independent by wearing large ILA buttons
The pictures in evidence , supplemented by oral testimony , place them almost invariably outside
the diner at the corner of Spring and Hudson in groups with other unidentified individuals--
Ackalitis, St. John, Weir, and Silverman usually together. The pictures show them doing little
more than talking to each other and to those in their group. But other evidence shows that
they or those in their group would on occasions greet or address passing voters . The only
testimony offered of any claimed untoward conduct engaged in by any of those in question was
that given by Alvin Rockwell, a paid AFL organizer 8 Rockwell testified that while he was
electioneering for the AFL near the corner of Spring and Hudson , shouting slogans such as,
"Let's go fellows, let's get rid bf this mob, now," Ackalitis said to him, "All right, Red,
you bum, you better go back to that bum's camp on Staten Island, because after Thursday,
you won't be working on this waterfront any more "
c. Brooklyn
Balloting at Brooklyn was conducted in the basement of Prospect Hall between 6 a. in. and
10 p in. on December 23, 1953 Prospect Hall is located on the north side of Prospect Avenue,
about midway between Fifth Avenue (running in a north-south direction), which intersects
it at the west end of the block, and Sixth Avenue which intersects it at the east end. The distance
along Prospect Avenue between Fifth and Sixth Avenues is approximately 600 feet Paralleling
Prospect Avenue to the north is 16th Street, and to the south, 17th Street The distance
between Prospect Avenue and 16th Street along either Fifth or Sixth Avenue is approximately
300 feet. There is no direct entrance from the street to the basement in Prospect Hall where
the voting was conducted . To reach the voting area, voters were required to enter a gate
on Prospect Avenue, go through an alleyway about 25 feet long, then into a courtyard about
125 feet deep by 50 feet wide, around the courtyard three-quarter circle along paths marked
by barriers set up to direct the flow of voters, and finally down a flight of steps leading to the
Prospect Hall basement where numerous ballot tables were set up During periods of the
day when voting was heaviest, usually when many buses came at once, the line of waiting
voters extended beyond the courtyard, through the gate, and east along Prospect toward 6th
At such times it would take voters as much as an hour or more to move from the gate to the
actual place of balloting.
No fixed electioneering limits were officially established in advance for the election , except
that electioneering-was forbidden inside the courtyard. However, at the opening of the election,
Inspector Saul Metz, of the New York Police Department, suggested to a Board agent and to
representatives of the Independent and the A F of L that they fix "no electioneering" limits
along the full block of Prospect Avenue between Fifth and Sixth Avenues. To this the Board
agent and the respective Union representatives agreed, and this area was accordingly marked
out by the police as a restricted zone.
The police detail covering the Brooklyn election numbered at the beginning of the day
approximately 20 uniformed men and 15 detectives . Later in the 'morning , after violence
broke out inttthe area, the police force was greatly augmented , so that before noon the uniformed
force alone included 50 patrolmen , 5 sergeants , 3 lieutenants , 2 captains , and an inspector,
and more were added later In addition there were an undetermined number of detectives and
police officers attached to other units. One police officer, O'Neill, fixed the total number of -
police that were there by afternoon as close to 300.
There is considerable evidence of violations by Independent proponeits of the "no election-
eering" restrictions that were imposed. Uncontradicted testimony establishes that Anthony
"Tony Spanish" Calvo, George Parszik, and "Red" Kane were observed during the day,
at least for short periods , inside the polling place soliciting the support of waiting voters-
for the Independent Calvo, who himself has a criminal record and reputation for violence,
is generally known on the waterfront as a close associate and bodyguard of Tony Anastasia,
the president of ILA Local 327-1 and reputedly a power among the criminal elements and
8 Cross-examination of Rockwell developed that he had himself been convicted of two
criminal offenses.
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 153
ruler of the piers in the Erie Basin of Brooklyn Until the licensing requirements of the
Waterfront Commission Compact had gone into effect, he had been a hiring boss, having suc-
ceeded Anastasia in that capacity when Anastasia became the Local president He does not
appear to have worked as a longshoreman during the year preceding the election Parszik
was a full - time business agent for ILA Local 808 Kane was the delegate of a boss loader's
local of the ILA. There is sufficient evidence in the record to justify a finding that none of the
three was eligible to vote . Judging from the positions they held , it can only be inferred that
they were aware of their ineligibility and wilfully trespassed into this area solely for election-
eering purposes.
Uncontradicted evidence also establishes the presence outside the gate, but within the "no
electioneering" limits agreed to with the police as aforesaid , of numerous persons prominently
identified with the independent . Among others shown by motion and still pictures in evidence
to be loitering at one time or another either directly in front or in the immediate vicinity of the
gate are Anthony Calvo, Anthony Anastasia, Joseph Callazzo,9 Charles (Bananas) Coppolino, 10
and Theodore "Tito" Balsamo ii Calvo particularly appears to havespent protracted periods
in front of the gate. 12
Uncontradicted testimony discloses that while at the gate, Calvo distributed ILA literature
and shouted ILA slogans One witness, William Mainculf, an eligible voter, testified without
denial that when he came in to vote early election morning , he observed both Calvo and
Anastasia at the gate entrance and heard them say, "If you want to work, you better vote
for the ILA. You know there isn't going to be any police protection after today, and if you vote
for the AFL, we will know how you voted, because we know the color of the ballots " As
Mainculf went through the gate, Calvo , addressing him directly , said , " Bill , that goes for
you, and it goes for the rest of the gang You better vote the right way You know there
isn't going to be any police protection after today."
Outside the area restricted against electioneering , there was vigorous compaigmng by both
sides, as there was at Jersey City and Manhattan But unlike the other places, general condi-
tions in the voting area cannot be characterized as on the whole orderly . Not only does the
record show occasional outbreaks of violence , one very serious , and threats of violence such
as occasional shouts from Independent groups, "If you want to work, vote ILA . There will be
no police protection tomorrow," or "If we ever get our hands on you AFL bastards, we will
tear you apart," but it shows also that throughout the day the police were required to exercise
constant vigilence to ward off incipient clashes between rival union groups . The police officials
whom the Independent called to testify concerning conditions at Jersey City and Manhattan had
no reluctance in stating that from a police point of view conditions had been generally orderly
in the areas under their jurisdiction . But not so Inspector Sam Metz who was in charge of the
uniformed police force in the Brooklyn election area In response to questions put to him by
the Independent's counsel, by whom he was called as a witness, he testified:
Q. Would you say that the entire area , during the period of your tour of duty, was
in general quite orderly?
A. No, sir.
Q. You would not?
A. No, sir
Q. Where would you say the disorders occurred?
A. Well, they occurred in several places
To illustrate what he meant by "disorders"--apart from the stabbing incident to be discussed
below--Metz gave as an example his observation of hostile bodies of Independent and AFL
iCollazzo is president of the ILA Local 1277. The record establishes that Collazzo has
a reputation for violence and is identified with criminal elements on the waterfront.
ioCoppolino is a delegate of ILA Local 327-1 and is reputedly Anastasia's personal body-
guard. Like Anastasia, he has a reputation for violence.
iiBalsamo, a hiring agent who was denied clearance by the Waterfront Commission, has
a reputation among longshoremen for criminal violence.
12 Edward P. O'Neill, a police officer attached to the Waterfront Commission, testified
credibly that he observed Calvo in front of the gate constantly from 12:15 to 1:30 p. m.,
entire period during which he kept that point under observation from a neighboring roof,
taking motion pictures. Another witness, Daniel Nilva, who took the still pictures, testified
that he observed'Calvo constantly at the gate between the hours of 10 and 11. Other witnesses
placed him there at other hours.
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
adherents , numbering perhaps 50 in each, approaching each other in menacing fashion , making
it necessary for police quickly to move into divert them from each other before they clashed.
The example he gave, Metz made clear , did not represent an isolated incident , but described
a situation that arose a number of times during the course of the day, and represented a
continuous threat . The police , he testified , had difficulty throughout the day in averting violent
clashes--and , as will hereinafter appear, did not always succeed.
As Metz' testimony further shows, the focal point of infection , where the police experienced
their greatest difficulty , was inthearea of 16th Street and Sixth Avenue. 13 To that intersection,
there had come very early that morning a group of Independent supporters , wearing independent
buttons, who are identified with Micky Bowers ' ILA Local 824, commonly known as the "Pistol
Local" that exercises jurisdiction over certain west side piers in Manhattan . Among those
in the group were Albert Ackalitis , Daniel St John, and Joseph Silverman --who, as found above,
had also been stationed in the Manhattan voting vicinity the day before --and, in addition, John
Keefe, James Flood , Leslie Bell , and Frank "Machine Gun" Campbell , who, like the others
mentioned , have criminal records and reputations on the waterfront for force and violence.
Captain William Bradley , president of the independent , testifying before the Brooklyn grand
jury during its investigation of the election violence , 14 admitted that he had observed Ackalitis,
St. John, and others with them , along with Micky Bowers, in that area early that morning
when he had made an inspection tour of the vicinity He also conceded that he was then aware
of their criminal records and character Although he disclaimed - - I believe honestly--personal
responsibility for their presence in the locality , his testimony leaves no doubt that he knew
they were there through arrangements made, if not by the International officers , at least
by those representing some responsible segment of the organization he heads When asked
why, knowing the character and reputation of these individuals , he had taken no action to have
them removed , but had instead tacitly accepted their presence there, Bradley replied that
although he recognized that "morally " he should have taken action "organizationwise it would
not be right and we have all that in mind."
The record reflects a number of incidents of violent and threatening conduct by Ackalitis
and his group . Thus, Bernard Brown , a member of the AFL Seafarers ' International Union,
who was campaigning for the AFL , testified without denial , and it is found , that while distrib-
uting AFL literature nearby , Ackalitis and others in his group on a number of occasions
violently snatched from voters ' hands the literature Brown had given them. Later the Ackalitis
group "chased" Brown from his distribution station, with Ackalitis warning Brown that if
he passed out any more literature " they would shove it down his throat" and St. John joining
in by voicing similar threats. 15
Brown further testified without denial , and it is found , that after he was "chased " but while
he was still in that area two buses came in with passengers When the passengers were ap-
proached by ILA men bearing literature , they said, "We didn ' t come down here to vote We
came here to straighten out these son-of-bitches." The passengers in these buses , according
to Brown, made no attempt to go to the polling place instead they reported to Ackalitis and
joined his group.
The activities of the Ackalitis group culminated in an outburst of serious violence at about
10.30 a. m that morning , when Brown returned to the corner of 16th Street and Sixth Avenue,
accompanied this time by Leonard Torres, Allen McDonald, John Sweeney , and two others- -all
members of the Seafarers ' International Union--who had grouped together at that labor
organization ' s hall for the purpose of driving down to the voting area to distribute literature.
The members of the seafarer ' s group carried with them , in addition to the literature they
were to distribute , sandwich placards reading, "Throw Anastasia out." As they left the car
in which they had come to 16th Street and Sixth Avenue, and were about to begin their dis-
tribution activity , Ackalitis , according to their undemed testimony , pointed at them exclaiming,
"Get the dirty bastards ." At once, a large number in the Ackalitis group, numbering from 50
to 100, rushed the seamen en masse , separated them , pummeled, beat, and kicked them. Knives
13 That intersection was not the main artery to the polling place Although there were voters
who approached Prospect Hall past that point , the majority arriving by public transportation
or by foot came along Prospect Avenue from the west . Those who came by bus were at first
discharged on Fifth Avenue near Sixth Avenue , later at a point on Sixth Avenue closer to the
Prospect Hall than the point at which this group was stationed.
14 The grand jury minutes are in evidence in this proceeding,
is There is also evidence of similar snatching of AFL literature from voters' hands at
other points in the vicinity.
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 155
were used . Before the fray was over , Torres had been stabbed in the diaphragm . McDonald
in the back, and Sweeney in the stomach . All required hospitalization . After this incident
Ackalitis disappeared . An alarm for his arrest was sent out by the police the same day, but
he has been a fugitive since
Not long thereafter , a report spread through the area that the Independent was bringing
in several hundred reinforcements from Manhattan That this report was not entirely without
foundation is revealed by Bradley ' s testimony before the grand jury , in which he in effect
admitted having a telephone conversation with Anastasia that morning in which Anastasia
complained that they werehavinga "little trouble" and that "some of the boys [had] got a shel-
lacking," and in which Bradley had replied, "Well, if they want to play that way, we can play
that way, too . I'll send over three or four hundred " Although denying in his testimony before
the grand jury that in fact he had sent any Manhattan men to Brooklyn , Bradley conceded that
he had earlier been in communication with John Bowers of the "Pistol Local ," who had
advised him that an official of that local had been beaten in Brooklyn and that several hundred
men were ready to come over to Brooklyn for "protection" purposes 16 Bradley testified that
he had urged Bowers to hold off sending his men , at least until after Bradley could make an
attempt to secure police protection instead , and that that still was his position even after his
talk with Anastasia , he testified , however , that , without direction from him, about 100
men, according to his understanding , had nevertheless gone to the Brooklyn voting area from
Manhattan . Bradley's understanding of the situation is confirmed by other reliable record
evidence , showing the arrival by bus later that morning of about 100 nonvoters who immedi-
ately upon their arrival engaged in a demonstration for the independent that-had to be dis-
persed by the policie.
Following the stabbing incident , and the report of the arrival in Brooklyn of ILA reinforce-
ments from Manhattan , tension mounted in the area , with the result that the police officers
in charge found it necessary to call in emergency reserves to quell the growing threat
of further rioting.
The stabbings were not the only eruptions of actual violence that broke out in the vicinity
of Prospect Hall that day Thus, Daniel Nelva testified --his testimony in that respect being
substantially supported by a photograph of the occur rence - - that while at the corner of Prospect
and Fifth at about 10 a m. he observed a man with blood on his lip point at men across the
street distributing AFL literature , and that immediately thereafter a group of men wearing
Independent insignia rushed across to the southwest corner of the intersection where they
engaged in a brief but violent altercation with the AFL adherents, that ended only with police
intervention . Philip Massa , an AFL organizer , testified credibly , and it is found , that about
5:45 p. in. on Fifth Avenue, south of 16th Street, he was seized by two men who tore off the
AFL electioneering sign he was carrying and "slugged me"--"hit me on the head with his
fist and I went sprawling on the ground ." Vincent Ventre , another AFL organizer , who wit-
nessed the incident , identified one of Massa's assailants as a public loader , Buckholtz, iden-
tified with the Independent . About 10 minutes after the Massa incident , according to Ventre's
further credited testimony , Buckholtz forced him to stop the car he was driving through the
area , ripped off the AFL banner on it, and called him a "no good AFL bastard ." Apart
from the incidents mentioned , which are established by independent evidence in the record.
there is testimony by police officials of 3 complaints of simple assault in the voting area re-
corded on police records, all 3 alleged to have been inflicted upon AFL supporters, the identity
of the assailants not being disclosed. 17
The violence that occurred at the Brooklyn polling area received wide--and somewhat
embellished - - publicity while the election still had hours to run, through lead stories carried
in the local afternoon newspapers under banner headlines , such as "4 KNIFED IN PIER VOTE"
and "FISTS FLY AS DOCKERS VOTE," and referring in their body to riotous conditions in
the voting area
16 Though a rumor was current at the time that Henry Bowers, an official of the "Pistol
Local" had been beaten up in the general vicinity of the voting area, police investigation
of that rumor failed to uncover anything to confirm it, according to Inspector Metz.
n Those stated to have been assaulted are Anthony Bruno, a longshoreman at 9 a. m.,
and Geiling, a longshoreman , and Leon Ryzop, an AFL organizer at 11 a. m. According to
Police Inspector Metz , Ryzop and Geiling did not report the assaults upon them , claimed to
have occurred at 11 a . m., until 6:30 that evening.
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Analysis and conclusions
If there were no more to this case than Jersey City and Manhattan, I should have hesitated
long before concluding that the objection with respect to the atmosphere of the election is so
substantially supported as to warrant a recommendation that an election of this size be set
aside and a new one run . There was considerable tension in the area of the Jersey City
polls particularly toward the close of the balloting , but some tension in an election of this kind
is to be expected , and I am unable to agree with the AFL that the general atmosphere there
was of such a character as necessarily to impede the free expression by voters of their
will By and large the conditions in the Jersey City voting area were kept orderly--and so,
too, were they at Manhattan . At neither of these places was there any actual disturbance
or outbreak of violence . And though there are 2 incidents involving threatening statements
in New Jersey , 1 by an unidentified person , and 1 such possible incident at Manhattan,18
I do not think that these incidents , which would have stood in isolation if Brooklyn could be
disregarded , would themselves have been viewed as so damaging to the freedom of the election
as to warrant the drastic action that is recommended below
The record does show, it is true, both at Jersey City and at Manhattan, the presence in
the general voting vicinity--at Manhattan a block and a half from the actual polling place--of
a number of individuals of unsavory character and criminal reputation prominently identified
with the Independent But I have serious reservations about the validity of a principle, such
as is urged upon me by the AFL and more vigorously by the State of New York , that would
hold that , even without overt acts or improper conduct, the mere presence in the general
neighborhood of a Board election of a union ' s supporters who have criminal records or
coercive backgrounds , or the solicitation anywhere on the day of an election of voters'
support by such persons; is alone enough to require invalidation of an election victory. While
there is a distinction , that argument in a sense presents a different facade to the contention
advanced by the AFL at the original hearing in this proceeding--and which the Board in its
Decision and Direction of Election was obliged to reject, because under the law as now framed
it could not do otherwise, whatever its own feelings might be--that in view of the history of the
Independent ' s operations on the waterfront and the character of those in control of important
segments of that organization the Independent should be found disqualified as a labor organi-
zation and ruled out from a place on the ballot . However I pass no final judgment here on
whether the principle urged is a valid one, for, valid or not, decision in this case need not
turn on it, since, though sparse in Manhattan and Jersey City, there is abundant evidence of
overt acts and improper conduct by such people in Brooklyn
A more clearly compelling basis revealed by the Manhattan evidence for upsetting the
results of the election is to be found in the unwarranted invasion of the Manhattan polling
place by two Independent officials , Gleason and Hicky , while voting was in progress. Their
conduct in that regard clearly represented a wilful flouting of the Board's election rules
Though these may appear in the overall picture to be but minor improprieties , there is Board
authority for the proposition that violation by even one union official of an election rule of
this kind, though not otherwise established to be accompanied by untoward conduct, is enough
to constitute a vital interference with an election , justifying its invalidation . See Detroit
Creamery Co , 60 NLRB 178.19
In any event, whatever the situation might have been in Jersey City and Manhattan, there
can be no doubt on the record of this case that the incidents which occurred and the atmosphere
which was created in the Brooklyn voting the following day were not conducive to a full and
free expression by employees of their representation will. It is obvious, of course, that an
election may not be two-thirds valid If tainted in part, all of it must fall
In Brooklyn , as in Manhattan, there were wilful violations by Independent supporters, in-
cluding two local officials , of the Board ' s-rule against electioneering in the polling places,
and, besides , unauthorized trespassing , loitering , and electioneering by independent officials
is That incident, involving a statement by Ackalitis to Rockwell, is reported at the end
of the discussion of the Manhattan evidence. The Independent argues that, as Rockwell was
a paid AFL organizer, Ackalitis' statement to him should be construed as no more than a
taunting suggestion to Rockwell that after the Independent won the election his work as an
organizer on the waterfront would be over. I think that is at least a possible inference.
19And cf. Alliance Ware, Inc., 92 NLRB 55, which cites Detroit Creamery with approval
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 157
and those known to be closely associated with them inside the area adjacent to the polling
place that had been marked out a restricted zone. But, in addition, there was more to cloud
the election atmosphere and to give it the coloration of force, violence, and intimidation. There
were on the part of independent supporters threats of violence and threats of job loss, the
snatching of AFL literature from the hands of voters, a number of simple assaults, and,
most serious of all, a felonious massed assault resulting in the stabbing of three AFL sup-
porters. And there was more, such as an invasion from a Manhattan local, the leadership
of which was notorious for violence, ofahundred or more men who had no legitimate business
in the Brooklyn polling area, and who, immediately upon their arrival, began a demonstration
that the police were obliged to disperse. Disorders and near disorders erupted on a number
of occasions Throughout the day there was a continuing threat of physical conflict between
the rival groups. And the virtual army of police that had to be brought in to maintain order
necessarily contributed to the rioutus atmosphere of the area . To those voters who had not
yet arrived to vote, news of violence and rioting in the voting area was carried by screaming
headlines in the afternoon papers released many hours before the voting was due to end.
Against this background of overt violence, I think it can reasonably be inferred that the
continued presence at or near the polling place, in some instances at the entrance gate, of
individuals who had been associated in the past with criminality on the waterfront carried
with it a coercive force, if only because it tended to instill in minds of voters the fear that
if the AFL won, the independent would not abjectly surrender without a show of violence.
Indeed, it appears that at least one of those individuals--Tony Calvo, who patrolled the gate
to the polling area for protracted periods of time--did not leave such an inference to chance,
for the record shows him declaring to voters that they had better vote AFL if they wanted to
work, that "there isn't going to be any police protection after today "
On the basis of facts in some cases far less compelling than those in this record, and even
where, unlike here, the incidents found were removed in point of time and place from the
actual election setting , the Board has set aside elections on the ground that they were not
"held in an atmosphere conducive to the sort of free, unintimidated choice of representatives
that the Act contemplates " See, e g , Gwaltney, Jr. and Co., 74 NLRB 367, Stern Brothers,
87 NLRB 16, Bloomingdale Bros., Inc ,-87 NLRB 1326, Diamond State Poultry Co., 107 NLRB
3
It is no defense to the Independent that most of the activities here relied on to support a find-
ing of an improper atmosphere were committed by individuals who in a strict sense were
not Independent officials To begin with, even were ordinary agency principles controlling,
I think enough appears in the record to impute responsibility to the Independent for the
invaders from Manhattan and for the violent conduct of Ackalitis et al., resulting in the stabbing
incident which, more than any other single factor, contributed to the formation of the climate
that is here condemned As has already been observed, Captain Bradley's own testimony before
the Brooklyn grand jury leaves little doubt that when he first saw the Ackalitis group in the
voting vicinity early that morning, he assumed them to be there through arrangement made
by a responsible segment of his labor organization, and that it was only because he thought
"orgamzationwise it would not be right" to do anything about it, that he did not seek their
removal. Thus in effect Bradley tacitly acquiesced in and ratified their presence in the
locality on behalf of the organization he heads It may well be that Ackalitis, St John, and
the others were not sent there primarily to intimidate voters in their voting choice--their
selection of a station in Brooklyn at a street corner where relatively few voters passed gives
some plausibility to that hypothesis--but rather, were there primarily for what they con-
sidered "protection" purposes . But the very presence of such enforcers of mob rule could
reasonably be anticipated to lead toward violence, as in fact it did. Bradley's grand jury
testimony shows that he was under no illusion as to this--aril particularly so because, as he
believed, and as certain portions of this record may suggest, the AFL may have had a number
of their own enforcers on the scene, in the form of seamen, a situation that could only add
to friction sparking trouble. In any event, even if the atmosphere of violence and disorder
that pervaded the Brooklyn election scene had been created by persons for whose actions
responsibility could not be imputed to the Independent under common law agency principles,
the result here reached would yet to be the same. The issue here is not one of unfair labor
practice liability, but whether, under all the circumstances, the election was held in a climate
conducive to the sort of free, unintimidated choice of representatives the Act contemplates.
The absence of agency responsibility is not controlling on that issue--"any more than would
the fact that a hurricane or other Act of God could not be attributed to an employer neces-
sarily lead to the conclusion that an election conducted in the atmosphere created by such a nat-
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ural phenomenon must be upheld as a true expression of the employees ' desires ." Gwaltney,
Jr. & Co., supra . See also Diamond State Poultry Co., supra.
The Independent in its brief makes the following somewhat startling statement:
There is no arguing the point that the presence of thugs and tough characters might well
intimidate a potential voter , but it could only intimidate him to the extent of scaring him
away from the polls . This type of intimidation has not been asserted , and in fact is
ruled out when we cohsider that 21,128 men out of a possible 24,153 voted.
Even accepting the premise stated that a potential voter might be intimidated only "to the
extent of scaring him away from the polls," that alone is reason enough to set aside the elec-
tion. The violent atmosphere showed itself in Brooklyn during the relatively early hours
of the election , and one can only speculate as to the number of those who, by reason of it,
might have been deterred from coming to the polls because they may have considered
discretion the better part of valor . The Board never requires proof, either in unfair labor
practice cases or election cases, that given individuals have been in fact coerced by improper
conduct; it is sufficient that the conduct found improper be such as to have a tendency to
coerce . See G. H. Hess , Inc., 82 NLRB 463; U. S. Rubber Co., 86 NLRB 3, 5; N.L.R.B. v.
James Thompson & Co., 208 F. 2d 743, 747. Nor is it necessary to show that election impro-
priety affected enough employees to change the result . Once it is shown that an election was
conducted under such circumstances as to deter any voters from expressing their free choice,
the results of the entire election must be canceled out.
The Board 's function and duty in cases of this kind was expressed by it in General Shoe
Corp., 77 NLRB 124, as follows:
In election proceedings , it is the Board's function to provide a laboratory in which an
experiment may be conducted , under conditions as nearly ideal as possible , to determine
the uninhibited desires of the employees . It is our duty to establish those conditions;
it is our duty to determine whether they have been fulfilled . When, in the rare extreme
case, the standard drops too low, because of our fault or that of others, the requisite
laboratory conditions are not present and the experiment must be conducted over again.
That is the situation here.
And that, too , is the situation in the instant case.
For the reasons stated, I recommend that the objection , classified in the Regional Di-
rector ' s report as A, (1), be sustained , and that the election be set aside . I further recommend
that the Board order a new election at the earliest possible date convenient with administrative
convenience.
ARTHUR S. MACH, YETTA MACH, SAM GELLER, RHODA
SOLOMON and BEVERLY GELLER, COPARTNERS trading
as MACH LUMBER COMPANY, PHILYET CORPORATION
AND CAPITOL WHOLESALE SUPPLY COMPANY t and MIS-
CELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO.
134, affiliated with DISTILLERY RECTIFYING & WINE
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, AFL,
Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-2295. April 5, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William
Naimark, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
1The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
108 NLRB No. 34.