United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 71 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO 71
8(b) (4) (D) to assign the disputed work to members of the League
rather than to employees represented by United.
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO and Wright Line
Division of Barry Wright Corporation . Case No. 1-CB-865.
February 05, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December' 3, 1963, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof.
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 Members
Leedom and Brown].
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
Trial Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this case, including
the Respondent's' exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the find-
ings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
There is no exception to the Trial Examiner's findings of fact with
regard to the Respondent Union's threats and acts of violence during
its picketing of the Charging Company's plant. In any event, we
are satisfied that such findings are amply supported by the record.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by such conduct directed at non-
striking employees, as well as by threats and violence directed at
supervisors in the presence of both striking and nonstriking em-
ployees? We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that it
was prejudicial error for the Trial Examiner to deny its request for
a continuance of the hearing pending the disposition by the State
1 We hereby correct the Trial Examiner 's occasional inadvertent references to the
Charging Party's plant superintendent , John Hawkesworth, and its production service
manager, Arthur Simonds ( erroneously spelled S-i-m-o-n -s at one place in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision ) as being Respondent 's supervisors.
We also note that Cliff Hague is the same Hague mentioned as one of three of the
Respondent Union's officials present at various times relevant here.
2 International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. (W. T. Smith Lumber Com-
pany ), 116 NLRB 507, enfd. 243 F. 2d 745 (C.A. 5).
146 NLRB No. 11.
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-courts of criminal cases arising out of the same acts of violence, par-
ticularly as the request was withdrawn by the Respondent at the close
of the hearing. We likewise find no merit in the Respondent's con-
tentions that the number of violations found did not warrant the
issuance of an order, as the incidents were too numerous and flagrant
to be treated as de minimis; or in the contention that no order.should
issue because the strike has ended, as it is "settled law that the dis-
continuance of unfair labor practices does not dissipate their effect
and does not obviate the need for a remedial order." 3
ORDER
The Board adopts as its order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.4
8 Chefs, Cooks , Pastry Cooks and Assistants , Local 89, Hotel and Restaurant Employees
Union , AFL-CIO; et al. ( Stork Restaurant , Inc.), 130 NLRB 543, 546.
* The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein, the following paragraph:
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, United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, its officers, agents , repre-
sentatives , successors , and assigns ; shall:
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed and served on July 23, 1963, by Wright Line Division of
Barry Wright Corporation alleging that United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union or the Respondent , had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(61 Stat . 136), herein called the Act, a representative of the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board , herein called the General Counsel and the Board,
issued a complaint dated September 6,. 1963, alleging violations by Respondent of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
The complaint (as subsequently amended on September 16, 24, and 27 ) alleged,
in substance , that Respondent had engaged in various acts of intimidation and
violence or threats of such in connection with its picketing of the Employer 's plant
and blocked or attempted to block the access of employees and others to and from
said premises . In answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice , the matter was heard by Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon
at Worcester, Massachusetts , on October 8 and 9 , 1963, with all parties represented
by counsel. The parties waived oral argument but a brief was filed by the
Respondent. .
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS INVOLVED
Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation is a corporation duly organized
under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Massachusetts . At all times
material herein it has maintained its principal office and place of business in the city
of Worcester, Massachusetts , where it has been continuously engaged in the manu-
facture, sale , and distribution of data processing equipment and related products.
In the course and conduct of its business it causes and continuously has caused at all
times material herein substantial quantities of data processing equipment to be sold
and transported from said plant to States of the United States other than the State
of Massachusetts . These shipments annually exceed $50 ,000 in value . Wright
Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation I find is and has been engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
73
United Steelworkers of-America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. '
The matters involved in this proceeding grew out of picketing by Respondent
Union at the Charging Party's plant in Worcester, Massachusetts, that began on
May 13, 1963. The credited evidence shows the following facts:
During the week of June 17,1 John Hawkesworth, Respondent' s plant super-
intendent, went out to the plant entrance one afternoon about 4:20 to help in picking
up nails from the driveway before the shift ended and employees left for home.
There were about 50 pickets on the scene and Hawkesworth "was pushed around to
a considerable degree" when he tried to. get through the pickets and while he was
picking up nails . One of the pickets, Eddie Beaudry, "bounced" him with his shoul-
der on one occasion and on another (as Hawkesworth was stooped down collecting
nails ) he attempted to step on Hawkesworth's hand. A few moments later as
Hawkesworth was trying to get more nails, Bill Bowes, another picket, pushed him
with his shoulder. Later in the same week on another occasion when Hawkesworth
was out picking up nails another picket, Cecil Pedone , gave him "a pretty good shove
with his shoulder" and told him to get out of the line.
On July 18, shortly before the end of the 4:30 shift, Hawkesworth was again out
at the entrance picking up nails. There were also about six or eight police officers
present . The pickets were blocking the entrance and the officers were having
some difficulty in opening a lane through them. The officers would walk into the
line and say, "Okay, let's open it up." They would also back up to the picketers
and wait for stragglers to get between the two rows of officers but there was a
continuous line of stragglers and the police were not able to open a completely clear
line.
As Hawkesworth was watching the police efforts he heard something strike a car
behind him. He swung around to see what happened in time to see an employee, Dan
Lucey, leaving his car and chase a man running toward Gold Star Boulevard.
A group of pickets broke away and followed them on the run. Hawkesworth
followed and saw that Lucey was trying to hold onto the man he had been chasing.
About this point the other pickets overtook them and one of them, Cliff Hague,
began hitting Lucey with his fists. Eventually the police got things "settled down"
and the cars were able to leave. Among those present on the picket line on this
occasion was Union Organizer Ray Murray.
On July 23, the police had similar trouble in getting cars through the pickets
who again numbered about 75. On this occasion the pickets surrounded one of the
employees' cars and attempted to pull the door open. About the same time one of
the striking employees, Mitchell Perry, spun Production Service Manager Arthur
Simonds around and struck him, breaking his glasses and cutting his nose. Union
Officials Murray, Sullivan, and Hague were present on this occasion.
After this incident the police finally moved in two lanes with their backs to the
pickets opening up an aisle for the cars to leave. As the cars left nails were being
thrown at them from the crowd. In spite of all the policemen's effort stragglers
would get through the cordon and would walk in front or jump in front of cars
stopping them.
About the same time of the day on July 18, Production Service Manager Simonds
was at the entrance picking up nails. One of the pickets, Zenovitch, gave him a
shove and told him he had no business being there and to "get the hell out."
Simonds continued picking up nails and Zenovitch came by again and gave him two
big shoves. Simonds moved away from Zenovitch and continued his efforts. Then
Cliff Hague went over to Simonds and prodded him with an elbow and told him he
.,was going to stick that stick up [his] rear." 2 On this same occasion Zenovitch
told him he would wrap the stick around his head if he did not get out of the line.
On June 24 during the lunch hour William Kirk and fellow-employee Ken Norling
left the plant in Kirk's automobile to drive to the A & P Market located adjacent
to the plant premises. As they left the main entrance one of the pickets, James
"Red" Healy, of some 15 or so present, hollered at them, "You are going to get it."
When they got to the store Kirk stayed in the car while Norling went in to get
some groceries. While waiting for Norling, Kirk noticed in his rearview mirror two
of the pickets approaching from the rear. The pickets were Mel Law and Healy.
1 All dates are in 1963.
2 The company people had been using sticks with magnets on their end to aid them In
picking up the nails.
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When they got to the driver's side of the car Law yanked Kirk' s arm and called him
"scum." Kirk pulled his arm away and the two pickets called him "scab" and
"scum" and "various names" and told him he was stupid to be working at Wright
Line.
In an apparent effort to belittle Kirk's position regarding the strike, Healy made a
comment the implication of which was that his wife had more manliness than Kirk.
Kirk said to Healy, "What did you do, marry a queer?" Healy asked Kirk to repeat
the remark which Kirk did. This enraged Healy and he began striking at Kirk
through the open car window and attempted to enter the car. At this point Kirk
pushed the door of the car open with his foot and got out. Then Law and Healy
came at Kirk with their fists up. Kirk began kicking at Healy who grabbed his
foot. Then Healy and Kirk went into a clinch and fell to the ground. As they
were scrambling on the ground Healy called to Law for help but Law said, " I can't
bit him while he is down." Next, someone whistled and Law said, "Cops coming;
break up the fight." Thereupon the two pickets left and returned to the picket line.
On September 12 Gordon P. Miller, the Company's director of industrial rela-
tions, went out to the main entrance about 3:30 to pick up nails. There were not
many cars leaving the plant at this time since 4:30 was quitting time. Three or four
cars did go out, however, but instead of using the main entrance headed for the
south entrance. There were about 30 or 40 pickets at the main entrance at this
time. They started yelling "let's get them" and 10 or 15 started to run toward
the south entrance. Apparently the cars got out without incident and Gordon
went back into the plant.
Shortly before 4:30 Gordon returned to the main entrance in the company of
Arthur Walker, comptroller of the Company, and three other officials of the Com-
pany for the purpose of picking up nails. At this time the number of pickets on
the scene had grown to more than a hundred. Among those present were Union
Officials Murray, Sullivan, Hague and John Andonian. There were also 3 or 4
police cars and 8 to 10 police officers present. Two or three cars which had come
to the plant to pick up passengers attempted to enter but could not do so until a
line was opened up by the policemen through the pickets.,
Shortly after 4:30 cars were lined up with the outgoing employees. The cars
had piled up waiting for the police to open a path through the pickets. This was
not easy because the pickets would not obey the oral commands of the police and
it was necessary to physically push the pickets back. This the police did by lock-
ing arms and making.a human chain to contain the pickets. After a small path
was opened by the police,, Walker, Miller, and the other company officials went into
the area and tried to pick up nails which were thrown all over the ground.. As
they did this the pickets were pushing and. shoving against the police lines and
giving them "a lot of verbal abuse." Suddenly the pickets broke through both
lines and began mauling the company officials. Miller and Walker were both
kicked and shoved as they tried to force their way out of the mob. Walker, in
addition to being kicked and mauled, received a number of blows including a very
sharp, hard blow on the back of his head.
After they managed to get out of the driveway area and through the crowd of
pickets (which they did with the aid of the police officers) there was a considerable
delay before the line was opened up again. Some of the delay was caused by a
fire alarm that had been turned in and some apparently by the fact that several
of-the pickets had been taken into custody by the police and were taken from the
scene by the "paddy wagon." In due time the police, having received substantial
reinforcements, again formed a human chain and moved into the picket line and
forced an opening for the outcoming cars. As the cars moved' through there was
a lot of confusion. The pickets were yelling and nails and stones were hitting the
cars. Suddenly the pickets broke through the police lines again and there was an-
other delay while further arrests were made. On this occasion Walker observed
Sullivan in the street with the police. It was not until about 5:15 that all the cars
had finally left the company premises.
On August 4, Gary Bowman went to the plant about 11 a.m. and made an ap-
plication for employment. He left the plant about 2:15 going out the main entrance
and through the picket line. As he walked through the line the pickets called him
names like "scab worker" but nothing else happened at that time. He crossed
the street in front of the plant and started toward the corner. Three men were
there, one of them being Union Organizer Murray. They started calling him names
as had the other pickets and followed him for 20 or 30 feet and then turned
around and went back. Bowman continued walking away and had gotten as far as
the West Boylston Street Spa when a car drove up behind him and Murray and
the other two men got out. They started talking to Bowman and one of the men
said that Bowman, "was taking his job away from him and he had three kids to
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO 75
support." Bowman said it was not his fault and Murray slugged him with his left
hand breaking Bowman 's jaw. Murray told him not to come back to work as this
was "just a taste" of what he would get if he did. Bowman started to walk back
toward the plant where a police cruiser was parked. When Murray saw this he
told Bowman to stay away from the police and keep his mouth shut. Thereupon
Bowman went into a business establishment and called the police. He waited about
10 minutes for the police to arrive. When they came they took him back to the
plant where first aid was applied. Then they took him to the hospital but stopped
at the courthouse first where he swore out a warrant.
The foregoing evidence amply sustains the allegations in the complaint that
Respondent restrained and coerced employees of Wright Line Division of Barry
Wright Corporation within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by inflicting and
threatening to inflict bodily injury to and property damage of employees of the
Charging Party and others and by blocking the entrance to said Company' s plant
all for the purpose of preventing said Company's employees and others from
crossing Respondent's picket line. District 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department
Store Union, AFL-CIO (Eastern Camera & Photo Corp.), 141 NLRB 991; Inter-
national Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO (Region 5) (Pioneer Lumber Corpo-
ration ), 140 NLRB 602; Central Massachusetts Joint Board, Textile Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO (Charles Weinstein Company, Inc.), 123 NLRB 590; United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and-Local No. 2772, etc. (Vulcan-Cincinnati,
Inc.), 137 NLRB 95; Bonnaz Embroideries Tucking and Pleating and Allied Crafts
Union Local 66, etc. (William L. Davis, et al ., dibia V: & D. Machine Embroidery
Co.), 134 NLRB 879.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in conduct proscribed by Section
8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist from such con-
duct and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. Also, being convinced that Respondent's activities indicate a purpose on its
part to defeat the policies and processes of the Act and demonstrate the likelihood
of their repetition in the future, I shall recommend, in order to make effective the
independent guarantees of Section 7 and to effectuate the policies of the Act, that
Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights of em-
ployees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the.
case, I make the following: - -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO , is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By inflicting and threatening to inflict bodily injury to and property damage
to employees of Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation and by blocking
ingress and egress to-its plant in connection with its picketing of said plant, Respond-
ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A)
of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record herein, I recommend. that United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, its officers, representatives , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
-1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inflicting and threatening to inflict bodily injury to and property damage
to employees of Wright Line Division of Barry Wright. Corporation and blocking
ingress and egress of said plant.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section '7 of the Act.
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its meeting hall or halls, where employees of Wright Line Division of
Barry Wright Corporation who are members of Respondent meet, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director of the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), shall, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including 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. Supply the Company with properly signed copies of said notice for
posting by the Company at the Company's premises.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply, hherewith .4
sin the event that this Recommended Order shall be adopted by the Board, the words
"A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
4 In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT inflict or threaten to inflict bodily injury on the employees of
Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corporation, or inflict property damage
on them or threaten such damage.
WE WILL NOT block the entrance to said company' s plant or prevent (by
means of threats or other coercive conduct) the entrance to or exit from
said company's premises.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
,amended.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston , Massachusetts, Tele-
phone No. 523-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Richard J. Pisarski
and Local 164, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind. Cases Nos.
7-CA-3937 and 7-CA-3958. February 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 6, 1963, 'Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
146 NLRB No. 1.