United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 30, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1372 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD frain from any or all of such activities , except to the extent that such rights may be af- fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL make Geraldine Bidema whole for any loss of earnings sustained by reason by the discrimination against her. GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL No. 137, AFL, Labor Organization. Dated ... ....... . By .......................... ..................... ........ ... ................ (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 914 and UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINO- LEUM & PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, INTERNA- TIONAL UNION, CIO. Case No . 13-CB- 206. October 30, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On August 5, 1953, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find- ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re spond- ent, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 914, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 'in so concluding, we find it unnecessary to adopt the statements by the Trial Examiner that, in effect, a union is responsible for all activities by pickets in furtherance of a strike as the record shows other grounds for holding the Union liable for the misconduct of the pickets and strikers on which we rely. With the exception of Wolff and Gourley, the persons who participated in conduct violative of the Act were agents of the Union. Wolff and Gourley, however, engaged in proscribed conduct only in the presence of Baker, union vice president, who not only failed to repudiate or prevent such action, but, in fact, participated in the incident- -albeit short of actually striking Beizen. 106 NLRB No. 250. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS 1373 1. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing employees of the American Rubber Products Corporation, La Porte, Indi- ana, by using or threatening them with force or violence, bar- ring their entrance and exit to and from work, or in any other manner restraining or coercing the employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist la- bor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activi- ties , as guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act except to the extent such right may be affected by an agreement requir- ing membership in a union, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places in the business offices of the Respondent in La Porte, Indiana, and in all places where notices to union members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report.' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thir- teenth Region, shall, after being signed by official representa- tives of Respondent, be posted immediately and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, copies of said signed notice for posting, the Company willing, on bulletin boards of the American Rubber Products Corporation, La Porte, Indiana, where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith. 2 This notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking therefrom the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order" and by adding, following the last word of the notice, "as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act " 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 "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed August 20, 1952, by the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Work- ers of America against the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 914, the Respondent, hereinafter called the Union, the General Counsel of the Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing on March 3, 1953. The complaint alleged the commission of unfair labor practices by the Respondent Union within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, as amended, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair practices, the complaint, as amended, alleged in substance that the Union had engaged in a planned and continuous course of conduct to restrain and coerce 1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the employees of the American Rubber Products Corporation, herein called the Company, in that: (1) The Union by its committeeman Roy Gourley and its vice president, J. Baker, threatened and assaulted employee Joseph Beizen because he had worked during a strike called by the Respondent Union, (2) the Union, by its president, Elmer Frahm, threatened physical injury to employee William Anders for attempting to return to work at the Company during said strike; (3) the Union by its committeeman, Cloyce Odell threatened employees Anthony Maglio and George Palmer with physical injury for attempting to return to work at the Company during said strike. Copies of the charge, and complaint, as amended, and notice of hearing were served upon the parties . Respondent Union filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in La Porte, Indiana, before Henry S. Sahm, the undersigned Trial Examiner. All par- ties were represented by counsel , and were afforded full opportunity to participate in the hearing, and to introduce relevant evidence bearing on the issues, to argue the issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs, and proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of law. Only the Respondent filed a brief During the course of the hearing, various motions were made by the Respondent Union to dismiss the complaint. These motions are disposed of in the follow- ing findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the demeanor of the witnes- ses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT L THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY American Rubber Products Corporation, an Indiana corporation with its plant and principal office located in La Porte, Indiana, is engaged in the business of manufacturing chemically blown sponge rubber for distribution and sale. In its operations, the Company purchased an- nually materials valued in excess of $1,000,000 of which 95 percent originated, and was ship- ped to it, from places outside the State of Indiana. The Company caused large quantities of its finished products, valued in excess of $ 1,000,000 annually, to be sold and transported in in- terstate commerce from its plant in Indiana, into and through States of the United States to places outside the State of Indiana. By reason of the foregoing facts, it is found that the Com- pany is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. IL THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 914, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act IlL THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction On April 12, 1952, the members of the Respondent Union voted to launch a strike because negotiations with the Company for a collective-bargaining agreement had reached an im- passe. i It is alleged that while the strike was in progress and the plant picketed, one of the company employees was assaulted while he was at work and others threatened with physi- cal injury by the Respondent Union when they attempted to return to work. The issue to be de- cided is whether the Union through its agents has engaged in such conduct which restrained or coerced these employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act to engage in union activity or to refrain from it i The strike of all the production and maintenance employees terminated on September 15, 1952. The circumstances which eventuated in the strike are described in American Rubber Products Corp., 106 NLRB 73. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS 1375 B. Sequence of events 1. The Beizen incident2 While the plant was being picketed by the Union and at a time when none of the strikers had returned to work , the Company through its viee president , Peter J . Torosian , asked Joseph Beizen whether he would be interested in being the night watchman at the plant until the regu- lar watchman who was ill would be able to resume his duties . Beizen , who was employed as a press operator by the Company but who was not working at the time due to the strike , agreed to take the temporary job. About 7 p. in., on June 20, 1952 , which was the first day that Beizen was acting as plant watchman , and while making his rounds of the Company's premises , he heard a crash in the warehouse . When he went to investigate , he found that a skylight located on the roof of the warehouse had been shattered. He saw three men up on the warehouse roof looking down through the broken skylight into the warehouse . As the three men proceeded to lower them- selves through the skylight , onto the warehouse floor, he recognized them as Roy Gourley, a member of Respondent Union and an employee of the Company , and two others whom he knew only by the names of Wolff, also an employee of the Company , and Sailor , who is not further identified. After they had lowered themselves into the warehouse, Gourley and Wolff then proceeded to grab Beizen and pinioned his arms to his side . Wolff asked him what he was doing there whereupon Beizen replied that he was the night watchman . Wolff then said, "you know the strike is going on ... You got no business here . What are you going to do , walk out or should we carry you out'" Beizen replied, "Don't worry , P11 walk out " With a man on either side of him and holding onto his arms , he was led out of the warehouse and into the plant yard where John Baker , the vice president of the Union , was waiting. Baker then joined the three men who were holding onto Beizen and walked with them and Beizen a- cross the company grounds and out through a gate in the fence which surrounded the plant. After they had gone off the plant premises , Wolff , 3 in the presence of Baker and Gourley, struck Beizen in the face , knocking him to the ground. When Beizen indicated he had enough, the four men escorted him to the street adjoining the plant where Baker and Gourley threatened him with physical injury if he ever returned to the plant during the strike . As Beizen walked away , the men entered a car which was parked at the curb and followed him as he proceeded to his home . He never returned to the plant during the pendency of the strike. According to the undenied and credited testimony of Beizen , he was physically assaulted by Wolff, inthe presence of Baker, vice president of the Union, and Gourley, a member of the Union, on the evening of June 20, 1952 , while he was engaged in acting as temporary watchman because he was working for the Company during a strike called by the Union and while the Union was picketing the Company ' s plant which was shut down by the strike . He was threatened also with physical injury by both Baker and Gourley if he ever returned to the plant during the time the strike was in progress Beizen's testimony which stands uncontradicted in the record, in conjunction with the entire background of evidence adduced in this case , merits belief and it is so found 2 The picket- line incidents On August S, 1952, approximately 4 months after the strike began , the Company sent letters to each of its employees requesting them to return to work on August 11. In response to the Company's request, William Anders, an employee who had not worked at the plant since the strike began , left his home on August 11 to report for work at 7:30 a. m , which was the time the day shift began When he arrived at the plant about 6:30 a m , he saw between 15 and 20 pickets in front of the employees ' entrance gate.4 Included among the pickets were Elmer Frahm, president of the Union , John Baker, the vice president , Roy Gourley , a member of the 2 This `ncident, as related by Beizen , is uncontradicted. 3The General Counsel produced no affirmative evidence as to whether Wolff was a union member. 4 The employees' entrance gate was opened at 7:30 that morning 137 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union, and Cloyce Odell, a member of the Union's bargaining committee. 6 All of them were employees of the Company Anders testified that when Frahm saw him at the plant entrance gate, he said: "No use stopping there because you ain' t going to get in there anyhow." Anders testified that he then proceeded across the street to a parking lot opposite the plant where he overheard a conver- sation between Frahm, Baker, and Gourley in which Frahm said, "We'll catch a few of these guys trying to sneak in [the plant) and work them over with a ball bat." Thereupon Anders went home George Palmer, a press operator for the Company and a member of the Union since Febru- ary 1952, also received a letter from the Company requesting him to return to work on Au- gust 11 On the morning of that day, as he approached the employees' entrance with the pur- pose of going to work, he was stopped by Cloyce Odell, one of the pickets, who asked him what he was doing there 6 When Palmer replied that he had come to go to work, Odell said, accord- ing to Palmer, "Well, why don'tyougoin " When Palmer asked him "who is going to keep me out" Odell, according to Palmer, answered , "I can "7 Palmer then left the vicinity of the plant Anthony Maglio, an employee of the Company and a union member since February 1952, upon receipt of the Company's return-to-work letter prepared to go back to his job He arrived at the plant between 7 and 7:30 a m. on August 11 intending to return to work. He was stopped at the plant entrance by Odell who told him in the hearing of Frahm and Baker 8 that "Nobody was going to go into that entrance gatenow or never " Maglio then left and did not go to work that day.9 Elmer Frahm, president of the Respondent Union, and an employee of the Company during the time the strike was current, testified that on the morning of August 11, there were approxi- mately 20 union members, some of them carrying signs, picketing the employees ' entrance gate of the company plant, This picket line, he stated, had been maintained every day begin- ning around 7 a. m throughout the period of the strike Frahm arrived at the picket line between 7 and 8 a. m. on August 11 and at approximately 9:30 a in the mayor and the chief of police of La Porte, Indiana, arrived on the scene and proceeded to close the plant ' s entrance gate 10 Frahm testified that he did not recall whether he spoke to Anders on August 11, but he did remember speaking to him one morning sometime in August He states that while he was on the picket line at that time, Anders came along and inquired how things were going and he told Anders, "you're not going to find out anything." When Frahm was asked on direct examina- tion why he said this to Anders, he answered , "I knew he was more or less a stool pigeon, company stool pigeon, and only reason he ever came by was to find out what he could find out.,, Frahm denied that on the morning of August 11, or at any other time during the strike, he threatened "to work some of these guys over with a baseball bat " He admitted, however, that he spoke to Palmer on the morning of August 11 at Freed' s Inn , which is located two blocks from the company plant . At that time and place , Frahm testified that Palmer "got a 5George Palmer and Anthony Maglio, company employees and union members, testified that they were present at the union meeting at which these officers were elected. John Chalik, Jr., secretary of the American Rubber Products Corporation, testified that John Baker's name was submitted in writing by the Union as being vice president during the period negotiations were in progress between the Company and Union with respect to a collective- bargaining agreement. He testified that in these negotiations, the Union was represented by Elmer Frahm, John Baker, and Cloyce Odell, the latter being a member of the Union's bargaining committee. 6Maglio, another employee, testified that he heard Palmer tell Frahm. Baker, and Odell, who were picketing the plant entrance on the morning of August 11, that he wanted to enter the plant in order to go to work. 7Palmer testified that Frahm and Baker were present during this conversation which Frahm denies. 8 Frahm denies he heard this conversation 9 The plant was unable to resume operations until the strike terminated on September 15, 1952. 10 Torosian, vice president of the Company, testified that the gates were opened at 7:30 a in on August 11, but the police were called when the pickets would not permit the Com- pany's office staff, who were not on strike, to enter the plant at 8 a. m. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS 1377 little smart and so did I.... He called me a name and I might have threatened to poke him in the nose right then and there." The Trial Examiner has carefully considered Frahm's testimony and observed his demean- or on the witness stand and concludes that his testimony denying any threats were made to Anders , Palmer, or Maglio , is not worthy of belief. The Respondent , however, contends that the Trial Examiner should credit the denials of Frahm rather than the testimony of the Gen- eral Counsel ' s witnesses concerning the picket- line incidents . However , these denials raise an issue of credibility which is resolved in favor of the versions told byAnders, Palmer, and Maglio . ii Based upon the foregoing recital of the facts in this case and upon the substantial evidence on the record appraised as a whole , and on the straightforward testimony of Anders, Palmer , and Maglio , Frahm ' s generally vague denials are not credited . The witnesses for the General Counsel appeared to be sincere and truthful witnesses , and the events related by them follow a logical sequence , which are consistent with the attendant circumstances in this case. Events ambiguous when viewed in isolation often become clear and informative when con- sidered in relation to another event . The other event in this case is the uncontroverted fact that employees Anders, Palmer, and Maglio who left their respective homes on the morning of August 11 with the expressed intention of reporting for work at the Company ' s plant did not do so. Although such a finding is unnecessary , the inference is warranted that the reason these employees did not report for work on August 11, pursuant to the Company' s letter to do so, was due to Frahm, Baker , and Odell, individually and collectively , threatening the afore- mentioned employees with physical violence if they attempted to enter the plant. C. The issues The questions to be decided in this case are (1) whether the conduct related above restrain- ed or coerced the employees whenthey entered or attempted to enter the Company's plant; and (2) whether such conduct legally may be attributed to the Respondent Union. If both questions are answered affirmatively it follows as a matter of law that such conduct was in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. Discussion The basic policy of the Act is one of intervention in labor matters , of clothing with affirma- tive protection those collective activities which are within the policies established by the Fed- eral Government) Correlatively, the policy of the Act is to protect employees in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. One of the rights protected by Section 7 is the right of employees to "refrain" from striking , or to work in the face of a strike , that is, to refuse to support a strike.'3 The right to strike , because of its more serious impact upon the public interest , is more vulnerable to regulation than the right to organize and select representatives for lawful pur- poses of collective bargaining . But this recognition of the right to strike plainly contemplates a lawful strike . The courts have firmly established the rule that under the existing provisions of Section 7 of the Act , employees are not given any right to engage in unlawful or other im- proper conduct . Employees have the right to strike but they have no license to commit vio- lence . " To justify such conduct because of the existence of a labor dispute or of an unfair labor practice would be to put a premium on resort to force instead of legal remedies and to subvert the principles of law and order which lie at the foundations of society." u A Union may use the various forms of concerted action, such as strike and picketing, to enforce an objective that is reasonably related to any legitimate interest of organized labor but the object of concerted labor activity must be proper and must be sought by lawful means A line must be drawn between permissible strikes and improper methods of pursuing permis- sible objectives Section 8 (b) (1) (A) was designed primarily by Congress to proscribe the coercive conduct which sometimes accompanies a strike but not the strike itself . It was intended to eliminate it Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U. S. 474, 495, 496; N. L R. B v. Dmion Coil, 201 F. 2d 484 (C A. 2); N. L. R. B. v. Wiltse, 188 F. 2d 917, 925 (C. A. 6) certiorari denied 342 U. S. 859. u American News Company, 55 NLRB 1302. iiCory Corporation, 84 NLRB 972, Clara-Val Packing Company, 87 NLRB 703 KN. L. R. B. v. Fansteel Corporation, 306 U. S. 240 at page 253. 1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not only the use by unions of physical violence and coercion, but also union threats of physical violence against specific individuals in an effort to compel them to assist a union. By this section of the Act, Congress sought to fix the "rules of the game" to insure that strikes and other employee organizational activities were conducted peaceably by persuasion and propa- ganda and not by physical force, or threats of force Congress was aiming at means, not at ends 15 In determining violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), the Board construes the terms "restraint" and "coercion" by limiting their application to situations involving actual or threatened physi- cal violence and threats of economic action by unions or their agents against specific individ- uals or groups of individuals in an effort to compel them to cooperate in a union's strike activities In other words, Section 8 (b) (1) (A) was intended primarily to eliminate physical violence and intimidation against employees. Where the Union's conduct involves violence, threats thereof, or related conduct, against particular employees, such conduct is proscribed by Section 8 (b) (1) (A). 16 Most cases which have arisen under this section concerned types of conduct which accom- panied strike action. The following concomitance of strike activity have been found to fall under the statutory prohibition against restraint or coercion: Picketing or other conduct which actually obstructed entrance to or exit from a struck plant by nonstriking employees; 17 the use of threatening language, 18 and acts and verbal threats of physical violence towards nonstrikers of the struck plant 19 Where the conduct is done in the presence of but not actually directed toward certain employees: this constitutes a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) because the con- duct is carried out under such circumstances as to insure that the employees who see and hear it will, in turn, be coerced by such conduct.20 In fact, the Board has held that a union or its agents may have engaged in coercion even though the conduct in question did not have the con- templated effect. 21 In Gimbel Brothers, Inc ,22 it was held that the conduct of a union official in escorting an employee from her work post under threats of violence and in forcibly removing an operator from her elevator was a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). So too, it was unlawful for Baker, the Union's vice president, and Gourley, a union member, to lend their concerted efforts to having Beizen removed against his will from the Company's plant while he was acting as night watchman. This lawlessness was compounded and condoned when they did not disavow nor prevent Wolff from assaulting Beizen in their presence The conduct of Frahm, the president of the Respondent Union, in threatening Anders on the morning of August 11 if he attempted to enter the plant in order to report for work actually barred Anders ingress to the plant Furthermore, when Anders overheard the conversation between Frahm, Baker, and Gourley in which the statement was made that "We'll catch a few of these guys and work them over with a ball bat," he was so restrained and coerced by his threat that he immediately left the vicinity of the plant. Threats to assault individuals which are made in the presence of employees have a coercive effect on the employees exposed to such an incident and are a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). 23 So, too, it is found, under the circumstances of this case, that when Odell, one of the union pickets, in his zeal to carry out the Respondent Union's policy of not permitting any employee to work during the strike, prohibited Palmer and Maglio from entering the plant on August 11, he so coerced and restrained them by his conduct as to violate Section 8 (b) (1) (A). This con- duct exceeded the bounds of peaceful picketing. 24 Is Perry Norvell Company, 80 NLRB 225; Clara-Val Packing Company, supra 16 Miami Copper Company, 92 NLRB 322. i7Sunset Line and Twine Company ( International Longshoremen's Union), 79 NLRB 1487. IsPerry Norvell Company , supra. 19Sunset Line and Twine Company ( International Longshoremen's Union ), supra 2oSunset Line and Twine Company ( International Longshoremen's Union), supr; Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, Inc (United Furniture Workers), 81 NLRB 886. 21Cory Corporation, supra 22100 NLRB 870. See also Bitner Fuel Company, 92 NLRB 953, 190 F. 2d 251 (C A. 4), where members of a striking union chased one of the nonstriking employees off the company's premises. 23Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, Inc. (United Furniture Workers), supra. 24Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, Inc. (United Furniture Workers), supra; United Mine Workers (West Kentucky Coal Co.), 92 NLRB 916, 195 F 2d 961 (C. A. 6), cert. den. 344 U. S. 920; Essex County Carpenters Council, 95 NLRB 969; Mercury Mining and Con- struction Co., 96 NLRB 1389. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS 1379 The question whether the Respondent has violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act requires not only a legal evaluation of theparticular conduct which has beendescribed above, but also a determination of whether the Respondent Union is liable for the acts of Frahm, Baker, Gourley, and Odell. Counsel for the Respondent in his excellent brief stresses the fact that the General Counsel has failed to prove that the aforementioned union members were agents of the Union or were authorized to do the various acts attributed to them. It is true that in the case of Wolff (who assaulted Beizen, the watchman) the General Counsel produced no affirmative proof as to whether Wolff was a union member although Beizen testified Wolff was an employee of the Company. As to the assault upon Beizen by Wolff, the Respondent does not deny that it took place, but it does deny that the evidence im- plicates it in the incident It is uncontradicted, however, that Baker, the vice president of the Union, was not only present when Wolff assaulted Beizen but that Baker also threatened him with physical violence if he ever returned to the plant during the strike. Thus, there can be no question, under the facts of this incident, that Baker adopted or at least ratified Wolff's as- sault on Beizen when he made no attempt to prevent it or to reprimand Wolff. This conclusion is strengthened when it is considered that Baker, immediately after Wolff's assault of Beizen, threatened him with a repetition if Beizen ever returned to the plant during the strike. All of the circumstances surrounding the assault confirm the conclusion that Baker was implicated in the assault Wolff's action in assaulting Beizen plainly furthered the Union's policy of keeping employees from working for the Company during the strike. The method employed by Wolff and not objected to by Baker was reasonably related to the Union's objective and was a not unfamiliar tactic in achieving such union goals. It is found, therefore, that responsibility for Wolff's assault upon Beizen was in furtherance of the Union's policy of excluding company employees from the plant during the strike, and therefore can be attributed to Baker, the Union's vice president, which, in turn, renders the Respondent Union liable for the assault because where an elected official of a union engages in conduct forbidden by the Act, the reasonable inference to be drawn is that he was acting within the scope, actual or apparant, of his authority 25 The Act holds a labor organization responsible for the unfair labor practices of its agents just as it holds an employer answerable for the conduct of his agents. Section 2 (2). The test for determining such responsibility is the law of agency as it has been developed at common law.26 It is a familiar rule of agency that a principal is responsible for the acts of his agent done in furtherance of the principal's interest and within the scope of the agent's general authority, even though the principal may not have authorized the act in question, and may, in fact, even have forbidden it. It is enough if the principal has empowered the agent to represent him in the area in which the agent acted.27 In fact, Congress specifically provided, in Section 2 (13) of the Act, that in determining the agent's authority, "the question of whether the spe- cific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling." The determining factor, then, is the nature of the agency The responsibility of the Respondent Union does not rest upon either express authority or express ratification by the Respondent of the actions of Frahm, Baker, Odell, and Gourley, officials of the Union, but upon whether or not they were within the scope of their general au- thority. As officials of the Union, it is found that their activity and conduct was within the scope of their general authority The strike was admittedly precipitated when negotiations between the Union and the Company for a collective-bargaining agreement had reached an impasse. The above-described strike 25 Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, supra; Sunset Line and Twine Company, supra where it was held that a local union is responsible for the strike activities of an officer particularly where the officer was present at the incident in question. See also Painters District Council (Higbee Co.), 97 NLRB 654, 202 F. 2d 957 (C. A. 6), 345 U. S. 995, cert. den , where it was held that a local union was responsible for the unlawful acts of its business agent and an unidentified picket who acted in concert with the agent during a strike, since the union agent was given authority by the local to call and conduct the strike and the unidentified picket engaged in the unlawful conduct without reprimand or repudiation by the local's agent. 26 See House Report No. 245 on H R. 3020, 80th Cong , 1st Sess., p. 11; House Conference Report No. 510 on H. R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. p 36; Senator Taft, Supplementary Analysis of the Act, 93 Cong. Rec. 6858-6859. 27 Tiffany on Agency (2nd Ed., 1924). Sec. 38, p. 105; Restatement, Agency, Sec., 219, 228 230, 233-234; Mechem, Outlines of Agency (3rd Ed„ 1923), Secs. 499-502, 504, 519, 526- 528. 322615 0 - 54 - 88 1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD activity of Frahm, Baker, Gourley, and Odell on the picket line was in furtherance of the Union's interest , as such activity obviously was designed to make a success of the strike by hampering the Company' s operations for the purpose of inducing it to enter into a collective- bargaining agreement with the Union By setting up a picket line at the plant entrance, the Respondent Union manifested a consent to third persons , including all employees of the Com- pany, that the individuals on the picket line were their agents and that they were endowed with apparent authority to act for the principal , the Respondent Union, with respect to such third persons and to perform acts on the principal ' s behalf . With identified pickets on an authorized picket line , there is a prima facie presumption that the Respondent has manifested its consent that these pickets were its agents acting in Respondent 's behalf and so their acts would be im- puted to the principal , the Union. 28 It is clear from the evidence , and in fact , it is not denied that the Respondent Union spon- sored the picketing of the company plant. There can be little question in view of the Board decisions cited herein, that these men were agents of the Union. They directed and partici- pated in acts of restraint and coercion in furtherance of the general objectives of the picket- ing They were thus acting within the scope of their authority as agents and their union, the Respondent , is responsible for the manner in which that objective was effectuated. The Respondent Union's control over the picket line having been established, it was up to the Respondent to disprove that specific acts were not the acts of the persons in the control group . If there be doubt , the Respondent produced the quandry , it was its responsibility to disassociate itself from the results . It rested upon the Respondent to disentangle the consequences for which it was chargeable from those from which it was immune . 29 This it failed to do and so is chargeable with the unlawful acts of Frahm, Baker, Gourley, and Odell. 90 The brief of the Respondent and the authorities cited therein have been carefully consid- ered . However , the Trial Examiner finds no occasion for lengthening this report by citing. distinguishing, or discussing them, because it is believed that the controlling reasons for this decision have been sufficiently discussed. 31 In returning to work before the termination of the strike , the company employees were exercising one of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act--that of refraining from en- gaging in concerted activity ;' in this case, the strike . It is clear that by assaulting Beizen, the watchman , and preventing Anders, Palmer , and Maglio from entering the plant , the Respond- ent, through its officials , Frahm, Baker , Odell, and Gourley, was coercing and restraining these employees in violation of their statutory privilege to rely on this protected right. Accordingly, it is found that Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, it will be recom- mended that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 28Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, supra. 29 National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards (Irwin- Lyons Lumber Co.), 87 NLRB 54. 20Shen-Valley Meat Packers, 105 NLRB 491, where it was held that under general rules of agency, a union was chargeable with the conduct of its steward even though said steward acted without express authority or even if his action was specifically forbidden, provided that he had been empowered by the Union to represent it in the general area within which he, as steward, had acted. 31Respondent argues that the Beizen incident does not bind it because it did not occur on the picket line. Colonial Hardwood Flooring Company, 84 NLRB 563, held that a local union is responsible for unlawful coercive activity of its agents away from the picket line. Respondent contends that since the plant gates were closed by the police and the employees were unable to enter that any conduct by the Union to prevent ingress would be academic and moot. Cory Corporation, 84 NLRB 972, held that a union may have engaged in coercion even though the conduct in question did not have the contemplated effect. The record reveals, however, that the gates were opened at 7:30 a. m. when the day shift was due to report for work and were not closed by the police until 9:30 a, m. The incidents on the picket line took place before 9:30 a. m. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS 1381 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The violative activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Company described in section I, above, have a close, inti- mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 2. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 914, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By intimidatory conduct designed to prevent employees from working for the American Rubber Products Corporation while a strike was in progress, the Respondent has restrained and coerced said employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 914 Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that: WE WILL NOT restrain and coerce the employees of American Rubber Products Corporation, La Porte, Indiana, in the exercise by them of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, by using or threatening them with force or violence, barring their ingress and egress to and from work, or in any other manner restraining or coercing them in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities, as guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act except to the extent such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a union. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL914, Union. Dated ................ By........... ............................... (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.