Taxicab Driver Union, Local 777, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 197 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

TAXICAB DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL 7 7 7, ETC. 197
awareness of the Rules. Receipted Rules should be kept for a period of six months,
filed by dates.
(10) If registrants inquire, they should be informed if workmen are registered who
are higher in preference than they.
(11) "Available for work" means that the registrant must be present at the time
and place uniformly required for dispatchment and be ready , able and willing to
go to the job site and perform the work for which he is being dispatched . The prac-
tice of each Dispatching Office shall be uniform as to all registrants with respect to
physical presence in the office at given hours, or telephoning in, being available at a
telephone , etc., and registrants shall be informed of the practice.
(12) Appropriate notations shall be made opposite the registrant 's name when his
name is reached for dispatchment , showing the job and classification to which he is
dispatched , his lack of availability , or other reason that he has been passed over. If
inquiry is made by the registrant , he shall be given exactly the same information
as to reasons, etc ., as appears on the notation.
(13) In such cases, or any other cases which may lead to a dispute , the Dispatcher
should immediately make notes on the facts upon which he or she based his or her
decision to dispatch or not to dispatch the man.
( 14) No fees shall be required as a condition of registration or dispatchment.
Taxicab Drivers Union , Local 777, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
and Crown Metal Manufacturing Company. Cases Nos. 13-CB-
1383 and 13-CB-1414. November 26, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 24, 1963, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a brief.' The General Counsel filed a brief in sup-
port of the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.2 The Board has considered the Inter-
1 Respondent ' s request for oral argument Is denied as, in our opinion , the entire record,
including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of
the parties
2 Respondent contends that there was prejudicial error In the Trial Examiner' denial
of its motion of July 2 to strike the proceedings held on June 26, on the ground that such
proceedings were held without Respondent 's participation The record shows that on
June 5 the Trial Examiner had Issued notice that the hearing would be reconvened on
June 25, by agreement of the parties . On June 21 one of Respondent 's counsel moved for
a continuance on the ground that he would be engaged In the U.S. district court on
June 25 ; and Respondent 's other counsel made a similar request on the ground that he,
145 NLRB No. 18.
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings 3 and conclusions of the
Trial Examiner, except as indicated marginally below,4 with the
following modifications in the remedy.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) by
the conduct detailed in the Intermediate Report, we shall , in view of
the serious nature and extent of such conduct , issue a broad order re-
quiring Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct
and from in any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights. However , we do not believe that
the extraordinary remedies recommended by the Trial Examiner in
his Intermediate Report are appropriate to the facts in this case and,
accordingly , we do not adopt them.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Taxicab Drivers
Union, Local 777, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, rep-
resentatives, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing employees of Crown
Metal Manufacturing Company or,any other employer in the exercise
of their rights as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act (including the
right to refrain from joining or assisting Taxicab Drivers Union, Local
777, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America) by threatening or inflicting physical
harm; by blocking ingress or egress of employees from the plant; or
in any other manner.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
too, would be unavailable on June 25 . On June 25 the Trial Examiner accordingly granted
a continuance to June 26 . But he refused a further continuance when the Respondent
failed to appear on June 26. The question whether a further continuance was to be
granted is a matter within the discretion of the Trial Examiner . We have examined the
entire record in this case and perceive no abuse of that discretion in this proceeding. See
Dal-Tex Optical Company , Inc, 130 NLRB 1313, 1313-1314.
3 We find without merit the contention of the Respondent that the Trial Examiner was
biased or prejudiced against it . A consideration of the entice record shows no basis for
so finding
4 We disavow as gratuitous and unnecessary the Trial Examiner ' s statements concerning
the individuals and/or organizations mentioned in the Intermediate Report other than the
Respondent The Board 's proceedings are not a platform for the articulation of a Trial
Examiner's views on matters extraneous to the legal and factual issues before him. Accor d-
ingly, since we do not in any way adopt the Trial Examiner 's comments on the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , its motion to intervene solely for the purpose of hav-
ing those comments stricken from the Intermediate Report is hereby denied.
TAXICAB DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL 777, ETC. 199
(a) Post at Respondent's business offices and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by official representatives of the Respondent,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to its members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region signed
copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Crown Metal Manu-
facturing Company, if it is willing, in places where notices to its em-
ployees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being
signed by the Respondent, as indicated, be forthwith returned to the
Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order" the words "A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF
CROWN METAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT by threatening or inflicting physical harm; by
blocking ingress or egress of employees; or in any other manner,
restrain or coerce employees of Crown Metal Manufacturing Com-
pany or any other employer in the exercise of their rights as
guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, including their
right not to join or assist us.
TAXICAB DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL 777, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago , Illinois , Telephone No. Cen-
tral 6 -9660, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed against Taxicab Drivers Union, Local 777, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called Local 777 or the Respondent, by Crown Metal Manufacturing Co.,
herein called Crown Metal or the Charging Party, on March 4 and April 1, 1963,1
the General Counsel issued an order consolidating the cases and complaint. The
complaint alleged that the Respondent , through its officers and agents, in five sepa-
rate instances threatened, coerced, and restrained employees of Crown Metal in viola-
tion of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. The answer denied the commission of un-
fair labor practices. This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before
Trial Examiner John F. Funke at Chicago, Illinois, on April 30 and June 25 and 26.
An indefinite recess was taken at the close of the hearing on April 30 to permit the
General Counsel to seek enforcement of 10 subpenas (General Counsel's Exhibits
Nos. 4-a through 4-j) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
This action was necessary when the witnesses failed to appear at the hearing on
April 30.
On June 5 the Trial Examiner, by telegram dated that day,2 notified counsel for
all the parties that the hearing would resume on June 25, a date which the Trial
Examiner understood would be convenient to all the parties. On June 21, the Trial
Examiner received a letter from Howard W. Minn, co-counsel for the Respondent,
attaching an affidavit of Jacques M. Schiffer, also co-counsel for the Respondent,
dated June 17, requesting a continuance of the hearing to "a date some time in
September 1963.113 The General Counsel moved in opposition to said continuance 4
and on July 21, the Trial Examiner received a replication to the General Counsel's
opposition to Respondent 's motion for a continuance .5 By telegram dated June 21,
directed to all the parties, the Trial Examiner denied the motion for a continuance
and the replication.6
Neither Minn nor Schiffer appeared at the hearing on June 25, no person appeared
to represent them, and no officer or agent of Local 777 appeared.? At the opening
of the hearing William Cavers, Regional Attorney for the Thirteenth Region, advised
the Trial Examiner that Minn had made an oral request of him for a continuance
from June 25 to June 26 because Minn's presence was required in court on June 25
as was Schiffei's. This continuance was granted by the Trial Examiner on the record,
no objection being expressed by any party.
On June 26 neither Minn nor Schiffer appeared , nor did any officer or agent of
Local 777 appear. Robert P. Henderson, counsel for the General Counsel, stated on
the record that at approximately 9:10 a.m . he had received a telephone call from
Minn in which Minn stated he had received a telegram from the General Counsel,
dated June 25,8 in which he was advised that the Trial Examiner had continued the
case from June 25 to June 26. Minn told Henderson he was calling to advise him that
it would be impossible for him to appear that morning , June 26, because he was
required to appear before a judge of the municipal court and a judge of the superior
court . This was the first notification Henderson received of this latest request for
a continuance and the first notice to the Trial Examiner of the request. Minn in-
formed Henderson that Schiffer was not in Chicago and so could not appear for the
1 Unless otherwise indicated all dates are 1963.
z General Counsel's Exhibit No 1-k.
General Counsel's Exhibit No 1-1
' General Counsel's Exhibit No 1-m
General Counsel's Exhibit No 1-n
c General Counsel's Exhibit No 1-o
4 No officer or agent of Local 777 had appeared at the opening of the bearing on April 30
although Joseph P Glimco, president of Local 777. had been subpenaed (General Coun-
sel's Exhibit No. 4-a ) On May 2, the General Counsel entered into a stipulation with
Minn relieving Joseph P. Glimco, Joe Coa, George Marcie, and Robert Markov of their
obligation to respond to subpenas (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 5
9 General Counsel's Exhibit No 1-p.
TAXICAB DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL 777, ETC. 201
Respondent. Henderson suggested that Minn send someone from his office to explain
his position or that he call the Regional Office and have the Trial Examiner paged at
the hearing room at 9:30 a.m. (the time set for reopening the hearing). No call was
received by the Trial Examiner and the hearing was opened at 9:40 a.m. when
Henderson made the foregoing statement. The hearing proceeded without repre-
sentation for the Respondent and was closed at 2 p.m. on that day.
On July 2, the Trial Examiner received a motion from Howard Minn to strike all
proceedings held on June 26, or in the alternative to reopen the proceedings to permit
cross-examination of the witnesses. On the same day the Trial Examiner denied the
motions in a telegram 9 reading:
Motion of counsel for the Respondent to strike all proceedings, etc. held in
the above matter on Wednesday, June 26, 1963, and the alternative motion to
reopen same proceedings are hereby denied. Respondent may request the Board
for special permission to appeal this ruling pursuant to Section 102.26 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8.
No request for permission to appeal from this ruling was made to the Board.
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were granted leave to file briefs. No
briefs were received.
Upon the entire record in this case and my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF CROWN METAL
Crown Metal is an Illinois Corporation having its principal place of business at
5912 South Lowe Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of metal display equipment and during the past calendar year it
sold and shipped from its Chicago plant products valued in excess of $100,000 to
places outside the State of Illinois.
I find that Crown Metal is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 777 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
David Varon, secretary of Crown Metal (his brother, Albert Varon, is president),
testified that his first meeting with any representative of Local 777 was on the
morning of February 21, and the manner of meeting was not atypical of subsequent
events. About 9:30 a.m. on that day, according to Varon, he was leaving the loading
platform of the plant to make a delivery of merchandise. A dead end alley leads
from Lowe Avenue to the loading platform so Varon had only one means of egress.
At the end of the alley (estimated as 180 feet in length by Varon) he saw two men
whom he later knew as Wallace Brown and Robert Howard 10 standing near two
large ashcans. As Varon drove down the alley Howard tipped over both ashcans
and rolled them into the middle of the alley, blocking Varon's path. Varon, who
had never seen either man before, drove down the alley as far as he could and got
out of his car. Howard then told him, "We are on strike here," and that nobody
was taking anything in or out.11 Varon picked up the aschans, restored them to their
place and started to get back in his car . Howard, however, pulled the aschans back
to the middle of the alley so Varon went back and moved them again. At this
point Howard seized him by the collar and told him no one was taking anything in
or out. Varon went back to the plant and called the police and when he returned
he found the windshield of his car had been smashed by a clinker from one of the
ashcans.
'This telegram is received in evidence on motion of the Trial Examiner as Trial Ex-
aminer 's Exhibit No 1.
to The General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent stipulated that Wallace Brown,
Robert Howard, and Raymond Frazier had been, since 1962, employed by Local 777 to per-
form general duties, including organizational activities, on behalf of Local 777 (General
Counsel's Exhibit No 5 )
11 Varon testified that there was a picket line at the plant when he arrived for work at
about 7:20 a.m.
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Varon met more formally with agents of Local 777 about 12:30 p.m. on that
day when Kenneth Colling met him on the sidewalk in front of the premises and said
he wanted to have a meeting with him and his brother and Glimco, president of
Local 777. Varon told Colling his brother would be back later and about 1:30 both
Varons met with Glimco, Colling, and Samuel Portwine , who said he was an agent
for the International . After Glimco was introduced he told the Varons that they
(the Varons) knew Local 777 had a majority of the people signed up and asked them
to sign a recognition agreement . The Varons told Glimco they doubted he had a
majority and told him the proper procedure was to petition for a National Labor
Relations Board ( herein called the Board) election. Varon quoted Glimco as
saying an election was "kid stuff," that they would never see an election, and that
Local 777 did not do business that way. The Varons asked for time to think it over
and Glimco told them he would give them until the end of the day. Glimco told
them the picketing would continue forever, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, until Crown
Metal was out of business . (The picketing continued until April 1.)
On Monday, February 25 (Friday, February 22, was a holiday so the next working
day after the 21st was the 25th), Varon testified that he and his brother met the
employees away from the plant, drove with them to a garage and then drove the em-
ployees to the plant in their own cars. This was because the employees told them
they were fearful of driving to the plant .12 At closing on that day the brothers parked
their cars in front of the employees' entrance to escort them back to the garages.
About 3:55 p.m. (the plant closed at 4) about 15 or 20 strikers and agents of Local
777 (there were only 3 or 4 pickets during regular hours ) collected in a group and
formed a tight circle in front of the entrance . There were three police squad cars in
the immediate vicinity and a car from the police labor detail . Varon told the officer
in charge of the labor detail that he anticipated trouble when the employees tried to
leave. The officer told him to get the employees in a single group and that he and his
men would separate the strikers and pickets and open a path for the employees.
This same situation prevailed on February 26, 27, and 28, with the police intervening
to permit the working employees to depart. Varon identified Raymond Frazier,
Wallace Brown, Robert Howard, and Samuel Portwine as being present at the picket
lines on these days and identified Frazier, Brown, and Howard as present at the
picket line when the strikers formed their group at 3:55 p.m. on February 25.
On February 26, Varon and his brother again met their employees away from the
plant and drove them to work. To reach the plant it was necessary , according to
Varon, to drive past the loading alley . When Varon 's car reached the alley he
found one car parked at the foot of the alley, one double-parked alongside it and
a third car triple-parked, thus blocking street access to the building . Varon drove
up on the curb and along the sidewalk to reach the entrance of the plant. Varon
unloaded his passengers and then parked his car in the street directly in front of his
brother's car, got out and started to talk to his brother who was still seated in his own
car. At this time Wallace Brown got out of his car and waved at Varon and shouted,
"There is the we want,13 let 's get that son-of-a-bitch ." Varon, although 30
feet away, could hear Brown clearly and when these words were shouted the police
car pulled up by Brown. One of the officers started to get out and Brown , a heavy
man, leaned against the door of the car to prevent him . The officer on the passenger
side got out and came around the car to get Brown who punched him in the body.
This scuffle permitted the other officer to get out of the car and Brown was put under
arrest. Howard approached the officers, cursing them , and was also put under arrest.
Both were driven away in a squad car . At the time this took place, Varon testified,
there were about 30 people in the area , including Glimco , other organizers , and strik-
ing employees.
Thomas McCarthy , a police officer of the Seventh District , was called as a witness
by the General Counsel . McCarthy testified that he and his fellow officer had driven
to the plant that morning in response to a telephone call and, after talking to Plant
Manager Fowler, had parked in front of the plant . McCarthy saw the Varons drive
up, unload the employees , and saw David Varon talking to Albert. McCarthy then
saw Brown walking toward Varon's car shaking his finger at him and using the obscene
language previously described by Varon. The officer with McCarthy told Brown to
get back on the sidewalk and go about his business . Brown , who was yelling, told
12 On the morning of February 21, according to the testimony of both Varon and Lebrun,
a foreman at Crown Metal, the top of Lebrun's convertible was cut and the tires slashed
after he had driven it to the plant The tires on Albert Varon 's car were slashed about
10 days later.
13 The epithet used by Brown to describe Varon is the foulest known to the Anglo-Saxon
tongue.
TAXICAB DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL 7 7 7, ETC. 203
the officer, "F- you, and f- Wilson, too " 14 Brown leaned against the door
of the car to prevent the officer from getting out so McCarthy got out and came around
the car to get at Brown. According to McCarthy a few punches were exchanged
with Brown taking the first swing. He and his partner put Brown under arrest
while he was still cursing them in obscene language and telling them they couldn't
arrest him. Then, according to McCarthy, Howard came up "raising hell about
Brown being arrested" and likewise telling the officers they couldn't arrest Brown.
Howard was yelling and using foul and obscene language and, since there were women
in the immediate vicinity, Howard was put under arrest 15
Dolores Figueroa, an employee of Crown Metal, testified that he drove to work
with other employees as passengers on March 29 and drove up the loading alley to
park. He turned into the alley from Lowe Avenue at a speed of about 15 miles per
hour. Three men were standing on the corner formed by the alley and Lowe Avenue.
These men claimed Figueroa tried to run over them and one of them, identified by
Figueroa from a photograph 16 as Raymond Frazier, ran up the alley after him.
Figueroa had let the passengers out when Frazier reached the car and tried, by grasp-
ing the glass window of the door (lowered about 2 inches), to force the door open.
In his other hand he held a knife but since the door was held by Figueroa from the
inside Frazier succeeded only in cracking the glass. Henry Kramp, plant super-
intendent, came out and pushed Frazier away and Figueroa went in to work.
James Griffen, Jr., an employee of Crown Metal, testified that he went on strike
on February 21 and that on that day he went into Crown Metal and induced other
employees to go out on strike.17 According to Griffen, Wallace Brown started or-
ganizing the employees of Crown Metal by meeting with them at a tavern at 59th and
Halsted Street in January. After the strike commenced on February 21 the strik-
ing employees met with Brown and Frazier daily, either in front of the plant or at
McPeace's Lounge. On March 29, a hearing was held on objections to the Board
election held at Crown Metal (Case No. 13-RM-675) which Griffen attended. A
meeting was held about 7:30 on the morning of the hearing at McPeace's Lounge
where Frazier and Howard told the strikers they had received instructions to beat
up Luis Lebrun, welding foreman at Crown Metal. Frazier and Brown told the
strikers they (the strikers) were supposed to form a ring around Lebrun so people
could not see what was happening and Brown and Frazier would beat him up. The
strikers, however, refused to participate in the plan, stating they did not want
violence.
Luis Lebrun testified that on the morning of March 29 he had been instructed to
get the police by Plant Superintendent Kramp after Figueroa had been attacked by
Frazier in his car. As he crossed Lowe Avenue to get the police Glimco told him
that "they" were going to get him on Milwaukee Avenue (where Lebrun lived).
Lebrun attended the Board hearing at 176 West Adams Street on that day with
Albert Varon and Frank Cogler under subpena. During a recess in the hearing when
Varon and his attorney left the counsel table, Lebrun testified that Frazier pushed
his chair and called him "dirty names." 18 Lebrun left the hearing about 3 p.m.
and went down to the street in the same elevator with Albert Varon, Cogler, and
Frazier. The parties used the Adams Street exit and Varon was walking in front
with Frazier on Lebrun's left and Cogler on his right. Without warning Frazier
punched Lebrun, knocking him down and then Lebrun felt someone kicking him in
the face, "maybe four or five times." Lebrun then got to his feet and Cogler gave
him a handkerchief to wipe the blood and he and Cogler returned to the hearing
room. Later Lebrun was taken to Henrotin Hospital where three stitches were
taken over his left eye. Lebrun went to work on Monday, April 1, with a black eye
and when asked by his fellow employees what had happened he told them he had
been beaten up in front of the Labor Board by Frazier.
14 Wilson is 0 W. Wilson, superintendent of police for Chicago.
15 At the time of the hearing in this proceeding the complaint which was issued by the
police officers against Brown and Howard had not been tried or otherwise disposed of, so
the statement by Brown that he could not be arrested may merely have been an error in
the choice of words. It is established that he can be arrested but it is not established
that lie can be tried.
16 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3.
17 The decision to strike for recognition was taken at a meeting at the hall of Local 777
on February 20
is The name-calling is corroborated by Henry Hopper, a striker, who testified that
Frazier, at the hearing, told Lebrun he was going to get him and that several of the
strikers as well as Frazier directed profane epithets to Lebrun. Lebrun is alleged to
have recruited and hired replacements for the strikers for Crown Metal.
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although Lebrun could not identify the persons who kicked him, John Terrel,
Jr., a striking employee of Crown Metal, witnessed the attack . Terrel also at-
tended the Board hearing on March 29 and after he left he waited on Adams Street
for some friends . He saw Varon , Lebrun, and Cogler come out of the building
and then saw Frazier beating Lebrun . After Lebrun had been knocked down he
saw both Frazier and Robert Howard kick him, then Frazier picked Lebrun up by
the collar to hit him again and Varon seized Frazier . Varon began calling for police
and Frazier and Howard ran away.
This concludes the substantial material evidence which supports the complaint.19
I do not think the testimony of Anastacio Valentin that he was once pushed by a
striking employee named John Sprouse as he left the plant sufficient to support
paragraph 19(a) of the complaint and it will be recommended that that paragraph
be dismissed.
B. Conclusions
No issue of credibility is involved for the officers and agents of Local 777, pos-
sessed of sufficient courage to kick a man in the face as he lay in the street , did not
have the courage to appear and testify at the hearing . Apart from this, I would fully
credit the witnesses of the General Counsel, all of whom testified in a free and forth-
right manner although some were not anxious to appear . 20 Griffen, Terrel, and
Hopper testified on behalf of the General Counsel, under subpena, although they had
joined Local 777 and had participated in the strike at Crown Metal.
I find the evidence that the organizers and agents of Local 777 and strikers , shortly
before the employees were due to leave the plant on February 25, 26, 27, and 28,
formed a picket circle at the employee entrance of the plant so tight that it was
necessary for the police to separate the pickets and escort the employees from the
plant, sufficient to support the allegations of paragraph 19(b) of the complaint.
Inevitably the formation of so tight a line posed a threat to the employees of
physical danger in attempting to break it. The fact that the police were able to
force a path through the line does not mitigate the threat . The fact that police
protection and assistance were required that the employees might exercise their right
to peaceful egress creates an atmosphere of coercion and restraint directly attributa-
ble to the organizers and agents of Local 777.
Substantial evidence supports the allegations of paragraph 19(c). The use of
foul and obscene language directed to David Varon and the cry to "get the son-of-a-
bitch" is inextricably a part of the assault upon the police officers since it was their
intervention which provoked the assault . The loud use of profanity and obscenity in
the public streets directed to an employer and to police whose duty it is to preserve
order at the scene of a strike is, when committed in the presence of employees going
to work and employees on strike , an act of coercion in itself. The open threat to
Varon constituted an incitement to attack him which , coupled with the foulmouthed
expression of contempt for the police and their superintendent, indicated a contempt
for the law, a contempt for public decency, and a contempt for any rights , either of
employees , employers , or the public . Coercion is inherent in such conduct. The
attack upon the officers, while not coercive as to them ,21 and the loud protests of
Brown and Howard that they were not subject to arrest in Chicago was merely the
culmination of conduct intended to coerce all in the area.
The attack upon Figueroa by Frazier , armed with a knife, was typical of Frazier.
The attack was unprovoked and aimed to terrorize the employees , for Figueroa, from
his appearance on the stand , was obviously not of Frazier 's ilk. Paragraph 19(d)
of the complaint is fully supported by the testimony.
10I do not find Varon 's testimony that Portwine offered to stage a Donnybrook or
Glimco's shouting, "That was a nice business that son-of-a-bitch had ," alleged as a viola-
tion in the complaint . I make no finding on this incident Nor, for lack of positive identi-
fication, can any finding be made on the slashing of Lebrun ' s tires, the slashing of Varon's
tires , or the breaking of two windows in Lebrun ' s grocery store on Milwaukee Avenue
As to the latter incident , the threat made by Glimco to "get" Lebrun on Milwaukee
Avenue and the identification of Frazier driving his car past the store raises a justifiable
suspicion but falls short of proof.
20 On April 2 the Charging Party sought to withdraw the charges , a request which was
denied by the Regional Director Albert Varon , subpenaed by the General Counsel, did
not appear and his attorney read into the record a letter in which he stated he did not
desire to appear ( Charging Party ' s Exhibit No. 1.) The General Counsel stated, when
10 witnesses failed to respond to subpenas at the opening of the hearing , that 4 of them,
including Lebrun and Figueroa , told him they were afraid to appear.
21 Officer McCarthy , true to his name and lineage , appears to have welcomed the oppor-
tunity for combat
TAXICAB DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL 777, ETC. 205
The attack upon the unsuspecting Lebrun, alleged in paragraph 19(e), delivered
without warning and without provocation, was a naked exhibition of brutality typical
of the tactics employed by Local 777. Nothing can be said in defense of men who
knock a man down, kick him in the face, and then run. Granting that the intelligence
of these agents is scant, decency requires only instinct, not intelligence. Yet decency,
on the record of this case, is alien to Glimco, Brown, Frazier, and Howard.
The coercion of employees of Crown Metal stemming from this attack, which was
publicized by the press and reported by Lebrun to his fellow workers, was under these
circumstances maximum in scope. It was further notice to the employees of Crown
Metal that the agents and organizers of Local 777 recognized no curb on their con-
duct, however savage.
As encompassed within the range of paragraph 19(e) I would include the state-
ments made by Frazier and Howard at McPeace's Lounge on the morning of
March 29 in which they informed the striking employees that they had been in-
structed to beat up Lebrun and that the strikers were to form a ring around them so
they would not be identified.
I find the Respondent, through its officers and agents, violated Section 8(b) (1) (A)
of the Act by:
1. Blocking the egress of employees from Crown Metal on February 25, 26, 27,
and 28 by forming a close picket line.
2. Directing, through Agents Brown and Howard, loud, foul, and obscene epithets
at David Varon and threatening to get him in the presence of employees of Crown
Metal.
3. Directing, through Agents Brown and Howard, loud, foul, and obscene epithets
at police officers and attacking police officers in the presence of employees of Crown
Metal.
4. Threatening, through Agent Frazier, an employee of Crown Metal with a knife
and cracking the window of his car.
5. Telling employees of Crown Metal, through Agents Frazier and Howard, that
said agents had been instructed to beat up an individual employed by Crown Metal.
6. Telling employees of Crown Metal, through Agents Frazier and Howard, that
they were to form a ring around an individual employed by Crown Metal so said
agents could beat the employee undetected.
7. Attacking, through Agents Frazier and Howard, an individual employed by
Crown Metal as he was leaving a Board hearing without warning and without
provocation, knocking him down, kicking him in the face, and running away.
Citation of cases in support of the findings herein would be an exercise in juridical
pedantry. If the words "restrain and coerce" are not applicable to the conduct found
unlawful here they have lost their meaning.
It is incredible that the rights of employees should be entrusted to a local operated
by men like Glimco, Brown, Frazier, and Howard. It is regrettable that this local
is able, by the conduct depicted here, to denigrate the reputation of hundreds of honest
and dedicated Teamsters locals just as it is regrettable the Teamsters International
by the conduct of its officers, has been able to denigrate the reputation of all organized
labor. It is interesting to note that there is nothing in this record to indicate that the
International has taken any corrective action against Local 777. Since it cannot be
doubted that the International has the authority to take such action it must be con-
cluded that its officers, including its president, lack either the will or the courage to
act. Once again violence of a peculiarly cowardly kind has been exposed to public
view as a technique employed by a labor organization and all labor must suffer.
It is no answer to say that management , including the management of some of the
largest corporations, has, in the past, engaged in practices more vicious and on a
wider scale than the petty and paltry thuggery displayed here. Management makes
no hypocritical pretense to dedication to the rights of employees ; management is
dedicated to profits.
N. THE REMEDY
This is properly a police court action and the powers of the Board , which are en-
tirely remedial , are inadequate to cope with violence. Punitive power is required and
punitive power the Board does not possess . The Board does not have the power under
Section 8(b)(1) (A) to order disestablishment of Local 777, the only power of the
Board which seems fitting. In view of the fact that Lebrun was beaten as he left a
Board hearing which he had attended as a witness under subpena , I believe the
Board's inherent powers to protect its proceedings from contemptuous abuse warrant
recommendation of an order barring Local 777 from use of its processes and such a
recommendation will be made in addition to the usual cease-and -desist order. Ad-
mittedly this is no stern proscription for, as Glimco reportedly stated, the filing of a
petition for an election with the Board is "kid stuff ," disdained by Local 777.
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In order to give as wide a publication to the attached notice as possible it will be
recommended that Respondent , by one of its officers, read the notice to the member-
ship of Local 777 at the first regular meeting of its membership held 20 days after
the issuance of this report. It will be further recommended that, to insure compliance
with said recommended reading of the notice , Respondent give 5 days' notice of said
meeting, fixing the time and place , to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region
so that the Regional Director may assign a Board agent or agents to attend such meet-
ing to obtain proof of compliance , with police or Federal Bureau of Investigation pro-
tection if deemed advisable by the Regional Director.
It will also be recommended that Respondent post the attached notice in conspicu-
ous places in its halls and offices and that at least one copy of the notice be placed in
each room of Respondent's halls and offices, including the restrooms.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon the entire record
in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Crown Metal is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 777 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Joseph Glimco, Wallace Brown , Raymond Frazier , and Robert Howard are
agents of Local 777.
4. By engaging in the conduct above found , Respondent has restrained and coerced
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in violation
of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
K. W. Muth Company, Inc. and Allan W. Hoffman , Petitioner
and United Furniture Workers of America , Local #800. Case
No. 13-RD-553. November 06, 1963
DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
DIRECTING HEARING
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 19, 1963, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclu-
sion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of balllots
which showed that of approximately 40 eligible voters, 40 cast bal-
lots, of which 17 were for and 17 were against the Union, with 6 bal-
lots challenged. The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to
affect the results. Thereafter, the Union filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the election.
The Regional Director investigated the objections and challenges
and, on'September 12, 1963, issued his report on objections and chal-
lenges. He recommended that the challenges be sustained. He also
found that some of the conduct complained of in objection No. 1
interfered with the election, and recommended that the election be set
145 NLRB No. 22.