North American Meat Packers Union (Geo A Hormel & Co.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 20, 1988

291 N.L.R.B. 390 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

390 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD North American Meat Packers Union (Geo A Hormel & Company ) and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, LocaL P 9, AFL-CIO Case 18-CB-1670 October 20 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On June 10 1988 Administrative Law Judge Karl H Buschmann issued the attached decision The Charging Party filed exceptions and a support ing brief The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge s rulings findings 1 and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified To remedy its violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act the judge ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from its unlawful conduct and to inform employees and members of their Section 7 rights by posting a notice at its offices and meeting halls frequented by its members He also ordered the Respondent to sign and mail to the Regional Direc tor copies of the notice for posting at the premises of the Employer Geo A Hormel & Company and at the Austin Labor Center where UFCW Local P 9 the Charging Party has its offices The Charging Party contends that the Board should re quire publication of the notice in the local Austin Minnesota newspaper or alternatively require a mailing to each of the members of NAMPU and the members of UFCW Local P 9 as well as to all of those who are on a preferential hiring list and waiting to return to work at the Hormel Company A special remedy is warranted the Charging Party ' The Charging Party has excepted to some of the judge s credibility findings The Board s established policy is not to overrule an admmtstra tive law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re versing the findings 2 The judge found that the Respondent violated Sec 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening harassing and intimidating employees by disrupting UFCW s membership meeting and impeding access of employees to the meeting and by assaulting an official and member of the UFCW The Charging Party excepts to the judge s failure to find additional incidents of intimidation threats and harassment For the reasons stated by the judge we agree that the record fails to establish that the Respondents agents intentionally broke any windows at the Charging Party s union hall on October 29 1986 We find it unnecessary to pass on the Charging Party s remaining exceptions as any findings of additional violations based on the alleged incidents would be cumulative and would not affect the Order contends, because the Respondent failed to post a notice as required in a previous case3 because it has no office or meeting hall where notices can be posted and because the violations found in the present case are the second series of violations committed by the Respondent within a 6 month period In order to ensure that the notice will be dis seminated to all affected employees we shall modify the judge s recommended Order to provide for mailing of the notice to the Respondents mem bers and to all employees on a preferential hiring list for Geo A Hormel & Company in Austin Minnesota in the event it is determined at the com pliance stage of this proceeding that the Respond ent has no office or meeting place at which to post the notice 4 Those employees currently employed by Geo A Hormel & Company and members of the Charging Party Union will be adequately ap prised of the notice by the provisions requiring the Respondent to sign and mail copies of the notice to the Regional Director for posting at the premises of the Employer and Charging Party 5 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re spondent North American Meat Packers Union Austin Minnesota its officers agents and repre sentatives shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified Add the following to paragraph 2(a) In the event it is determined at the compliance stage of this proceeding that the Respondent does not have its own office or meeting place copies of the notice shall be mailed by the Respondent to each of its members and to all employees on a pref erential hiring list for Geo A Hormel & Company in Austin Minnesota 3 Meat Packers (Hormel & Co) 287 NLRB (1987) 4 Lathers Local 11 (Wilton & Denton) 202 NLRB 391 (1973) s Under these circumstances we find it unnecessary to order the Re spondent to publish the notice in the local newspaper Mary E Leary Esq for the General Counsel David Twedell Esq for the Respondent Robert Funk Jr and Roger A Jensen Esq of Washing ton D C and St Paul Minnesota for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE KARL H BUSCHMANN Administrative Law Judge This case arose on a charge filed on November 10 1986 by United Food and Commercial Workers International 291 NLRB No 65 MEAT PACKERS (HORMEL & CO) Union Local P 9 AFL-CIO (UFCW) and a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Re lations Board on December 19 1986 against North American Meat Packers Union (NAMPU) The com plaint alleges that the Respondent NAMPU violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by restraining and coercing employees of Geo A Hormel & Company in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act The Respondent s answer admits the jurisdictional alle gations of the complaint that it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and that certain individuals or charter members are agents of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act In all other respects the answer denies the allega tions of unfair labor practices The case was tried before me on January 28 and 29 1987 in Minneapolis Minnesota where all parties were given the opportunity to introduce relevant evidence to examine and cross examine witnesses and to make oral argument Briefs were filed on March 5 1987 by the General Counsel on March 4 1987 by the Charging Party UFCW and on March 5 1987 by the Respond ent Based on the whole record in this case and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses I make the following i FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Geo A Hormel & Company is a corporation with an office and place of business in Austin Minnesota where it is engaged in the processing and nonretail sale and dis tribution of meat and related products It is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act The Respondent is admittedly and at all times material has been a labor organization within the meaning of Sec tion 2(5) of the Act II THE ISSUE At issue is whether the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the following manner (1) About June 27 1986 it attempted to inflict serious bodily harm on an employee and intimidated harassed and threatened employees (2) About October 29 1986 it threatened harassed in timidated and otherwise impeded access of employees to UFCW s offices attempted to disrupt and disrupted the UFCW s membership meeting shouted obscenities at and threatened UFCW representatives and attempted to in flict and inflicted damage to windows of the Austin Labor Center (3) About November 13 1986 it threatened to inflict serious bodily harm and threatened to kill employees at the National Packing House Conference and assaulted a UFCW employee at the conference 1 The events in this case involved similar conduct that was the subject of a proceeding heard on October 17 1986 and decided by Administra tive Law Judge Thomas R Wilks and that case was reviewed by the Board at 287 NLRB 720 (1987) 391 (4) About November 25 1986 it threatened to inflict bodily harm and threatened to kill a UFCW representa tive at the Austin Labor Center (5) In early November 1986 it intimidated and other wise threatened an employee III BACKGROUND The Charging Party Local P 9 UFCW had been the collective bargaining representative of Geo A Hormel & Company s employees in Austin Minnesota A strike commenced on August 17 1985 and lasted several months On March 13 1986 the UFCW International Union directed Local P 9 to discontinue the strike When Local P 9 refused to comply with the directive of the International it responded by placing the Local under the control of a trustee and by suspending the officers of the Local This action was challenged in the U S district court in Minnesota which in a decision on June 2 1986 upheld the validity of the trusteeship and also found that Local P 9 officials had engaged in threats and harass ment toward the officials and trustees of the Internation a] The Respondent organization NAMPU was then formed by certain former members and officials of Local P 9 The charter members of NAMPU were Peter Ken nedy Larry Gullickson Richard Shatek Rodney Huinker Connie Damen Merril Evans and Dan Allen Continued friction between NAMPU and the UFCW International resulted in a prior unfair labor practice case reported at 287 NLRB 720 IV THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Among the specific allegations in this case NAMPU is charged with two unlawful incidents that occurred about June 27 1986 and thereafter and were committed by Merril Evans an agent and charter member of NAMPU In regard to these allegations of threats harassment and attempts to inflict bodily harm the record contains the testimony of two Hormel employees Gregory Schaefer and his brother Ryne Schaefer According to their testi mony the incidents occurred on June 26 and 27 when they and a fellow employee John Crisco were on their way from work to the offices of a dentist in downtown Austin Minnesota They encountered Merril Evans one of the Respondents charter members in the parking lot There was a confrontation between Evans and the Schaefer brothers but their accounts of the incident differ According to Gregory Schaefer Evans shook his fist at him shouting obscenities and repeatedly calling him a scab a loser and lowlife Evans also screamed that he would kill him or get him Then turning to Schaefer s brother Ryne Evans said How does your old man like having a couple of scabs in the family and he also accused their father of being a scab Evans also called their friend Crisco a scab saying that they would all die Evans finally returned to his car and while driv ing away he narrowly missed Gregory Schaefer who had to jump out of the path of the oncoming car Ryne Schaefer testified that on the day when he vis ited the dentist Evans parked his car next to theirs and shook his fist yelling at them The three confronted him as he sat in his car and he said [Y]ou re a scab you re 392 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a loser get out of my face what do you want He got out of his car and poked his finger at Gregory saying [Y]ou re a scab and a loser He also said I bet your old man s proud to have two scabs in the family and he is one too Ryne s testimony confirmed that Evans nar rowly missed his brother as he drove away from the parking area but he did not remember whether Evans threatened to kill anyone on the afternoon of June 27 The testimony of Gregory Schaefer impressed me as exaggerated and somewhat dramatic and I credit it only to the extent it was corroborated by the testimony of his brother It shows that during the brief confrontation be tween Evans and the Schaefer brothers on June 27 they approached Evans and confronted him He then called them and their father a former business agent of Local P 9 derogatory names He shouted at them and pulled away from the parking space in his car narrowly missing Gregory However that testimony does not support the allegations that Evans had threatened their lives or har assed them on that day nor that he had attempted to in flict serious bodily harm on them when he took off in his car Gregory Schaefer had walked in front of Evans car and may have been careless or provocative Moreover the record does not show whether the incident was an intentional act by Evans to hit Schaefer or an accidental maneuver by Evans I would therefore dismiss the alle gations of the complaint relating to this incident of June 27 1986 because the record does not convincingly show that any threats were made on that day or that Evans had attempted to inflict bodily harm Moreover the name calling alleged as harassment or intimidation may have been provoked when the Schaefers and their friend confronted Evans in his car The Schaefer brothers also testified in regard to the next allegation in the complaint that since the incident on June 27 Evans had repeatedly cursed them calling them obscene names and threatening their lives The Respond ent s offices in Austin Minnesota were located two blocks away from the offices of the UFCW at the Austin Labor Center so that employees of Hormel frequently drove by the Respondents offices As they passed by the Respondents offices they were occasionally subjected to name calling Gregory Schaefer testified that from June through November 1986 on at least 30 occasions Merril Evans recognized his car going past NAMPU s head quarters on Fourth Avenue and came out shouting I am going to kill you you f- scab you re a lowlife you re a scab and I in going to beat the s- out of you (Tr 14) Ryne Schaefer testified that on about three oc casions when Evans recognized him driving by the NAMPU office Evans came out yelling You f- scab I in going to kill you you re a loser A similar incident occurred in September when Evans followed Gregory Schaefer in his car and shouted the same obscenities and repeated that he would get him or kill him Although this testimony was not contradicted I believe that Greg ory Schaefer s estimate that there were 30 or more simi lar incidents was exaggerated because it was inconsistent with his brothers version In any case I find that such conduct occurred at least three or four times as alleged in the complaint The next several allegations in the complaint center around conduct that occurred on October 29 1986 On that date the UFCW had scheduled its first membership meeting since the strike at its headquarters at the Austin Labor Center The meeting was intended for active members of UFCW s Local P 9 who were working at Hormel Excluded were the strikers who had not re turned as employees with Hormel The meeting was ex pected to draw about 500 employees or about one half of the 1096 active members Robin Demsen a secretary of Local P 9 had sent withdrawal cards to those Hormel employees who had been on strike and had not been re called Among them were members and agents of the Respondent the charter members of NAMPU Never theless up to 50 inactive members appeared at the meet ing and demanded that they be permitted to attend the meeting Among them were Kathy Buck the suspended financial secretary Connie Dammen Peter Winkels the suspended business agent Jim Guyette former president of Local P 9 Dick Shatek Rodney Huinker and others UFCW representatives in charge of the meeting mclud ing Frank Green and Ken Kimbro announced that the meeting was only for the active membership and that in active members were excluded At that point the Re spondent s charter member and suspended officers at tempted to gain entry one by one Kathy Buck and Connie Dammen confronted Frank Green and demanded entry Peter Winkels and Jim Guyette followed stating that they had a right to attend the meeting because they considered themselves members Merril Evans who was also present waved the notice and loudly requested entry When they were not permitted to enter they re mained at the entrance blocking access to the meeting The scene was one of confusion and near riot where re porters were present with cameras and active members attempted to get to the meeting but were blocked by the Respondents members who were also attempting to get to the meeting They were asked to leave but they re fused and loudly protested Ken Kimbro one of the trustees for Local P 9 called the police for assistance When a police officer arrived about 20 minutes later the crowd including the Re spondent s members and supporters was still there block ing the entrance With the help of the police the UFCW was able to move the people so that the active members were able to pass by and through them to get to the meeting They were however subjected to name calling sometimes obscenities and threatening remarks such as scabs lowlife or [i]f you go in there you may not get out As a result of the confrontation active members of Local P 9 were discouraged from attending the meeting For example Robin Demsen testified that two members Tom Ischida and Pamela Dolph had called the Labor Center and said that they were afraid to attend Ken Kimbro similarly testified that a lot of people called and expressed fear of parking their cars in the vicinity or of going to the meeting because of the situation Larry Kolman and Rod Medlin representatives of UFCW tes tified that they observed people who intended to attend simply turn away Steven Mauseth an employee of MEAT PACKERS (HORMEL & CO) Hormel testified that another employee told him that he did not attend the meeting because he did not want the hassle of going through the crowd Pamela Dolph a Hormel employee explained in her testimony that be cause of her fear of vandalism when she saw 20 or 30 people with NAMPU caps and signs in front of the Labor Center she did not want to park her new car in the area and did not attend Chad Young also a Hormel employee testified that he knew of several members who refused to attend the meeting because of the confronta tion between the inactive members and the UFCW Al though the UFCW had expected up to 500 members of its total membership of 1096 only 76 members attended At least three police officers had been assigned to create order for the meeting Once the meeting started and the doors to the meeting room were closed NAMPU s members and supporters remained outside and continued to shout Several of them climbed on a window ledge at the outside of the rear of the meeting room For example Robin Denisen testified that she could see them gesturing at the win dows yelling scabs and obscene names and pounding at the glass until three windows broke by the end of the meeting Ken Kimbo corroborated that testimony and explained that the only person he could identify was Rodney Huinker Chad Young also testified about the continued yelling pounding on the window and the shouting i e you may have got in but you re not going to get out He recognized Fred Simon an active supporter of NAMPU Larry Kolman testified that when he left the meeting after it had already started he saw Connie Dammen climbing down from the window ledge Rodney Hutnker testified and explained that he had noticed the window earlier and that it was already broken He stated that following an interview with a news team during that evening he barely touched the window when it just caved in He also testified that he had no intention of breaking the window and that he and Richard Shatek picked up the pieces of glass One of the police officers at the scene was Charles Wesely In his testimony Wesely observed as follows (Tr 222) The person that broke this window his name is Rodney Huinker I know him personally from going to school with him and I happened to be looking straight at him when it happened and at that particular time he was standing outside of the doors immediate doors entering the labor center and he was leaning up against the building and at that time there was also other people standing around I don t know the cause of why he fell back wards but I observed him falling backwards and it looked as if his elbow knocked the window out In my estimation that particular incident was an acct dent The officer further testified that there was a lot of confusion that evening and that the police attempted to keep the entrance open and to keep control as best they could He confirmed that there were shouts of obscene ties but he could not recall who said them and he did 393 not hear anyone uttering any threats He testified that four officers were dispatched to the Labor Center that evening and that it took a while to clear the area because many people tried to gain access to the meeting some were permitted and some were not and there were lots of shouting going back and forth Both Connie Dammen and Rodney Huinker testified They denied that they threatened anyone or shouted obscenities According to my appraisal of the testimony the Re spondent s witnesses Wesely Damen and Huinker ap peared to understate the events on October 29 admitting a scene of confusion temporary blockage of entry isolat ed shouting of obscenities repeated demands to enter and an accidental breakage of the window The record for example shows that Humker s testimony and that of Wesely were inconsistent to the extent that Huinker claimed to have picked up the broken glass and Wesely observed that he had not Moreover Wesely who ad mitted that there were over 500 union related incidents outstanding with the local police may have been influ enced by the fact that his brother was a supporter of NAMPU On the other hand the General Counsels wit nesses impressed me as having overdramatized the events when they described the Respondents conduct as an in tentional and deliberate blocking of the entrance to the meeting the forming of a gauntlet the repeated shout ing of death threats and the willful destruction of sever al windows The record fairly shows that the 20 to 40 inactive members of Local P 9 who had only recently received their withdrawal cards from the Union (UFCW) wanted to attend the union meeting The Union s new leadership barred their entry and a confron tation ensued at the entrance of the union hall the situa tion was getting out of hand resulting in confusion and shouting of the usual epithets like scabs and other angry words When the doors to the meeting were shut lock ing out the Respondents members and supporters they protested pounded on the windows and continued their shouting This required the police to restore order In the process the window glass was broken by one of the Re spondent s charter members In addition there were per sonal confrontations For example Steven Mauseth an active member of Local P 9 had an argument with Gary Butts a NAMPU supporter about the strike against Hormel Other NAMPU sympathizers joined Butts call ing Mauseth a scab a son of a bitch and other names He subsequently called the police and requested surveil lance of his house because he was concerned about his safety The next several allegations deal with events from No vember 13 to 15 1986 when the UFCW International Union held the National Packing House Conference in Chicago Several UFCW representatives from Austin at tended the conference including Jack Smith Ken Kimbro Chad Young and John Morrison Although not invited to the conference a delegation of NAMPU mem bers appeared about 6 p in at the meeting as it conclud ed for the day Merril Evans Lynn Houston Rodney Huinker Peter Winkels Al Wesely and Richard Shatek stood in the hall as Louie Anderson International vice president of the UFCW who had been in charge of the 394 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD meeting approached them Evans asked him several questions and an argument ensued in which Anderson told the group that they were not invited At that point a more hostile confrontation occurred between Shatek and Morrison who had been close personal friends 2 Shatek initially asked Morrison John what the hell are you doing with that slime? When Morrison attempted to ignore that Shatek became more intense and angrier calling him a f- scab and challenging him to a fist fight outside Morrison attempted to ignore Shatek s provocation saying that he did not want to fight that they had been friends for a long time and that he did not want to discuss the situation now Shatek became more irate and boisterous shouting loudly [I]f you f- make me move away from the town that I was born in the town that I ve lived in the town that my mother died [in] the town that I brought my family up in the town that I worked in I m going to get you and I m going to get you in your bed and you am t even going to know it (Tr 205) When Jack Smith a Local P 9 offs cial reminded Shatek that his remarks had been over heard by others Shatek stated that he did not care and he then repeated some of the same statements Similarly when Carl McCaffrey the UFCW secretary treasurer passed by Shatek the latter yelled [H]e is one of them too he is up there he is up there he watched us lose our houses Shatek then intentionally walked up to McCaf fery colliding with the left side of his body When Smith finally attempted to resume his conversation with Merril Evans Evans said to Smith [H]e s got a right to feel that way you d feel that way if you lost your house and your car and your wife The confrontation ended when the UFCW officials left With respect to the allegations concerning events that occurred on November 25 1986 the record shows that on that date Local P 9 of the UFCW donated turkeys and traditional Thanksgiving food at the Austin Labor Center to Hormel employees who had not been reinstat ed Although the event was scheduled from 10 a in to 4 p in certain NAMPU members including Merril Evans Peter Kennedy Larry Gullickson Garry Butts Rodney Huinker and 30 to 50 others appeared at 9 30 a in and demanded their share immediately They then began to demonstrate in front of the Labor Center and passed out leaflets They also had posted a sign that read Boycott Hormel Jack Smith and Ken noticed the sign at lunch time and they proceeded to take the sign down Evans in the company of five others loudly objected shouting at Smith That s not your sign you am t got a right to touch that sign somebody is going to kick the shit out of you you re liable you re going to end up liable to get killed Smith and Kimbro then returned to the Labor Center 3 The final episode of confrontation occurred in early November 1986 when Ryne Schaefer with two friends returned a car to Lowell Evan s home As the men got out of their car Merril Evans noticed them and walked E Shatek did not deny the episode in his testimony but suggested that it was a personal matter 3 Connie Dammen testified that she did not observe the incident but she also explained that she was absent for 45 minutes at the lunch hour when the confrontation could have occurred up to Schaefer saying [Y]ou God damn scab lowlife loser Where is your brother? I want to know where your brother is I in going to get him Evans pushed Schaefer to provoke him into a fistfight and said [T]ake a poke at me swing hit me real hard with two hands He then ordered them to unload the car and get out V ANALYSIS It is the position of the General Counsel and the Charging Party that the Respondent repeatedly violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) which prohibits a labor organization from restrain[ing] or coerc[ing] (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 of the Act Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees the right to self organization to form join or assist labor organiza tions to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and the right to refrain from any or all such activities In agreement with the basic principles of law in volved the Respondent states that it claims no right to threaten persons nor any right to block the streets or to interfere with the lawful business of Respondent s rival union but argues that the alleged misconduct did not occur and that there is no pressing need for injunc tive relief because the conduct is certainly not happening at the present time Moreover the allegations according to the Respondent are based on tainted and incredible testimony to prevent NAMPU from operating as a union in Austin The record evidence summarized above shows that some of the alleged violations occurred Although some conduct could be dismissed as personal confrontations between individuals it is clear that the Respondent is re sponsible for conduct involving its officers charter mem bers and agents For example the unrebutted testimony shows that employees on their way to the Labor Center were repeatedly subjected to threats of personal harm by Merril Evans a charter member The Respondent must be held accountable for such conduct when it occurs from its office by one of its leading members The record further shows that threats were shouted by charter members of the Respondent on November 13 at the Chicago conference Richard Shatek s oral and phys ical confrontation with a member of the Charging Party and Merril Evans support of the episode in the presence of the NAMPU members must be considered misconduct by the Respondent Such conduct consisted of threats harassment intimidation and an assault directed at offs cials and members of the opposing union The record also shows other instances of name calling and threats all that amount to harassment and intimidation of em ployees and members of the opposing union The record further shows that the Respondents pres ence at the Austin Labor Center on October 29 disrupted the meeting of Local P 9 and impeded access of employ ees to the meeting The Respondent s agent made threats and engaged in intimidating and harassing conduct The Respondent had a duty to avoid unruly conduct by its members and officers The record does not show con vincingly that the Respondent had intentionally attempt MEAT PACKERS (HORMEL & CO) ed to disrupt the meeting or that damage to the windows resulted from deliberate conduct by the Respondent The Respondents members and officers appeared at that meeting more out of a desire to attend the meeting than to disrupt it or to interfere with it To be sure they were uninvited but their affiliation with Local P 9 had been canceled shortly prior to the meeting and they were ob viously interested in the affairs of that organization The disturbance came about because they were denied admis sion and not as a result of a concerted attempt to damage windows block entry or restrict access to the meeting Yet once the disturbance was evident the Respondent had a duty to discontinue that conduct Other instances such as the remarks shouted at offi cers of the UFCW on November 25 seemed to have been provoked when they attempted to take down the Respondents sign The confrontation between Schaefer and Evans in November should be considered a personal confrontation The incident occurred on private property involving a personal matter without the presence of other employees The law is clear A union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) when its conduct involves threats violence harassment intimidation and coercion of employees and individuals who are not employees NLRB v Mine Workers 429 F 2d 141 146-148 (3d Cir 1970) Rockville Nursing Cen tern 193 NLRB 959 (1971) Teamsters Local 298 (Schu macher Electric) 236 NLRB 428 (1978) Although the Act literally prohibits coercion of employees such conduct directed at nonemployees is also unlawful when other employees would hear about it Teamsters Local 298 supra Moreover the Respondent here cannot escape responsibility for the conduct of its charter mem bers because in determining the culpability of a union the principles of agency are to be construed literally Colson Corp v NLRB 347 F 2d 128 137 (8th Cir 1965) cert denied 382 U S 904 (1965) Section 2(13) of the Act clearly provides that it is not controlling whether the specific acts of a person acting as an agent were actually authorized or subsequently ratified by the union CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 By threatening harassing and intimidating employ ees the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act 2 By disrupting UFCW s membership meeting and im peding access of employees to the meeting the Respond ent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act 3 By assaulting a member of the UFCW the Re spondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act I recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from its unlawful conduct and to take affirmative action to inform employees and members of their Section 7 rights 395 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed4 ORDER The Respondent North American Meat Packers Union Austin Minnesota its officers agents and repre sentatives shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Threatening harassing and intimidating employees to restrain or coerce them from engaging in the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act (b) Disrupting UFCW meetings and impeding access of employees to UFCW s offices or meetings (c) Assaulting officials or members of UFCW or other unions (d) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls used by or fre quented by its members copies of the attached notice marked Appendix 5 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18 after being signed by the Respondents authorized representa tive shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members and employees are customarily posted Reason able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other material (b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director copies of the aforementioned notice for posting at the premises of the Employer (Geo A Hormel & Company) in Austin Minnesota if the Employer is willing and for posting at the Austin Labor Center by United Food and Commer cial Workers International Union if it so desires (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint alle gations not specifically found be dismissed 4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur poses 5If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board 396 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or dered us to post and abide by this notice Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form join or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect ed concerted activities WE WILL NOT threaten harass or intimidate employ ees to restrain or coerce them in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Secton 7 of the Act WE WILL NOT disrupt United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local P 9 AFL-CIO meetings or impede the access of employees to UFCW s offices or meetings WE WILL NOT assault officials or members of UFCW or any other union WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act NORTH AMERICAN MEAT PACKERS UNION