United Steelworkers of America, Local 2118

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1561 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2118 1561
(b) Post at its plant in St Paul, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 18, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.'°
I If this Recommended Order is 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. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision
and Order".
10 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing , within 10, days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 our employees that:
WE WILL permanently withdraw and withhold all recognition from The
Employee Council, or any successor thereto, and completely disestablish it as
the bargaining representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the administration of or dominate any labor
organization of our employees nor will we illegally assist or contribute support
to one.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
as amended.
JANSEN ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING, INC,
Employer.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316
Federal Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Telephone No.
334-2611.
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO , and Its Local 2118
and Worcester Stamped Metal Company. Case No. 1-CB-949.
July 03,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 14, 1965, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
153 NLRB No. 142.
1562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the allegations of the complaint.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning 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
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that
the Respondents, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and its
Local 2118, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
1 Immediately after the hearing opened, and again at the close of the General Counsel's
case, the Respondents requested a continuance of the bearing pending disposition by the
State courts of criminal cases arising out of the same acts of violence involved herein.
The Trial Examiner denied the requests. Respondents then timely filed with the Board
a request for special permission to appeal from the Trial Examiner's denial of their two
requests . The Board , on October 29, 1964, denied the request for permission to appeal.
The Respondents have now excepted to the Trial Examiner 's ruling.
The question whether a continuance is to be granted and the extent thereof is a matter
within the sound discretion of the Regional Director or the Trial Examiner , under Sec-
tion 102.16 and 102 43 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended. We
perceive no abuse of that discretion in this case . See Power Equipment Company, 135
NLRB 945.
2 Respondents have excepted to the Trial Examiner 's findings of fact and conclusions of
law only to the extent that they have resulted from the alleged prejudicial effect of the
refusal to grant a continuance. In any event , we are satisfied that the findings are amply
supported by the record.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
On June 15, 1964 , Worcester Stamped Metal Company, Worcester , Massachusetts,
herein called the Company, filed charges against United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent International , and its Local 2118, herein called
Respondent Local, Worcester, Massachusetts . On July 30, 1964 , the General Coun-
sel' issued a complaint , and the Respondents thereafter filed a joint answer. On
1 The term General Counsel refers to the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and his representatives at the hearing.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2118 1563
August 31, 1964 the General Counsel issued an amended complaint and thereafter
the Respondents filed a joint answer to the amended complaint.''-'
The complaint, as amended, alleges that during June and July 1964 the Respondents
engaged in specified conduct "with an object of preventing the employees of the Com-
pany and other individuals from crossing the picket line and compelling them to
observe the said picket line established by Respondents at the Company's plant."
It is alleged that this conduct violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act.
Upon due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr.
from September 28 to October 2, 1964, both dates inclusive, at Worcester, Massa-
chusetts. All parties were represented and partncpated fully in the hearing. During
the course of the hearing, at the suggestion of the Respondents and with the assent of
the other parties, I viewed the exterior of the Company's plant." After the close of
the hearing, the General Counsel filed a brief and the Respondents filed a joint brief.
These have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case,4 and from my observation of the witnesses,°
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is found that the Company is, and
at all material times has been, an employer engaged in commerce as defined in the
Act, and its operations meet the Board's jurisdictional standards; 6 and that each of
the Respondents is, and at all material times has been, a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. The complaint further alleges, the answer admits, and it is
found that the following individuals occupy, and at all material times have occupied,
the following positions in the Respondents: John Andonian, international repre-
sentative of Respondent International; Bob Giguilhat (also referred to in the iecord
as Donathan Giguilliat and Bob Ginlat), president of Respondent Local; and Ray
Brouillette, vice president of Respondent Local.
A. The pieinises involved
The Company and American Emblem Company, herein called Emblem, jointly
occupy, and at all material times have occupied, a factory located at the southwest
corner of Shrewsbury and Hunt Streets in Worcester, Massachusetts (see Appendix
A). Shrewsbury Street, which extends approximately east and west, is a four-lane
major traffic artery dedicated to public use. Hunt Street, which extends approxi-
mately north and south and is perpendicular to Shrewsbury, is a private way about 80
feet long and about 40 feet wide. It connects Shrewsbury Street (at Hunt Street's
northern end) with the entrance to the parking lot shared by the Company and
Emblem (at Hunt Street's southern end). The entire west side of Hunt Street is
occupied by the factory; the east side consists of privately owned property. As Hunt
Street approaches the intersection of Shrewsbury (an intersection which contains no
traffic light or other control), it slopes downgrade. At Hunt Street's southern end,
where it meets the parking lot, there is, and at all material times has been, a gate
referred to in the record as "gate A" or "the old gate." Thus the driver of a vehicle
desiring to enter the parking lote from Shrewsbury Street must turn into Hunt Street
and travel its entire length before reaching gate A into the parking lot. However,
there is another entrance to the parking lot, through what is referred to in the record
2 Meanwhile , on August 10, 1964, the Respondents jointly had filed a motion for a more
definite statement with respect to the original complaint , the General Counsel had filed
a response to the Respondents ' motion, and Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner had issued an
order denying the Respondents ' motion, on the ground that the General Counsel 's response
provided the Respondents "with sufficient particulars to enable [them] to adequately
prepare for hearing and defend against the allegations of the complaint."
S On October 9, 1964 , after the close of the hearing , the Respondents filed with the
Board a joint request for permission to appeal to the Board from certain rulings made at
the hearing . The General Counsel filed an opposition thereto and the Board on Octo-
ber 29, 1964, denied the Respondents ' request.
s The caption on the covers of the first two volumes of the transcript and at pages 1
and 185 of the transcript is corrected to conform to the caption as it appears above.
5 The only witnesses were those called by the General Counsel.
9 The Company is, and at all material times has been, a Massachusetts corporation
with its principal office and place of business in Worcester , Massachusetts , where it is
engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of light and heavy stamped metal and
related products . The Company annually ships products valued at more than $ 50,000
to destinations outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
1564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as "gate C" or the "Hecla Street gate." This is located on the west side of Hecla
Street, a public highway which runs approximately north and south (parallel to Hunt)
and intersects Shrewsbury Street about 200 feet east of the Shrewsbury-Hunt Street
intersection. While the record is not entirely clear on the matter, it appears that the
Hecla Street gate was kept closed most of the time.
So far as the record shows, the factory building cannot be entered on foot directly
from Shrewsbury Street. There are, however, doors leading into the factory both
from Hunt Street and from the parking lot through which pedestrians may enter.
In mid-June the Company erected a gate across Hunt Street at the intersection of
Shrewsbury. This is referred to in the record as "gate B" or "the new gate."
B. Conduct of the picketing generally
On April 26, 1964, the Respondents authorized a strike against the Company. The
strike began the next day, April 27,7 and was still in effect at the time of the hearing
herein. There has been picketing of the plant every workday (Monday through
Friday) since the strike began. Some employees of the Company and of Emblem
joined the strike and engaged in picketing: others did not. Both the Company and
Emblem have continued operations at the plant.
Andonian was present on the picket line every weekday morning (with the excep-
tion of two Fridays) from 20 to 30 minutes before the employees' starting time until
10 to 15 minutes after starting time. Giguilliat (who in addition to being president
of Respondent Local is an employee of the Company) was present on the picket line
every workday (except one) virtually all day. Brouillette was also present practically
all day every workday until about June 20. At one time or another both Giguilliat
and Brouillette carried picket signs.8 From these facts I conclude that the strike and
picketing are, and from their inception have been, a joint venture engaged in by both
Respondents. It follows, and I find, that each Respondent is accountable for the acts
and conducts of the agents of both during the strike.
The picketing, most of which centered around the intersection of Hunt and Shrews-
bury Streets, normally commenced in the morning before the employees were due to
report for work and continued until after they had departed in the late afternoon.
The number of pickets was usually greatest at the beginning and at the end of the
workday. Each workday there was present near the picketing a detail of Worcester
city policemen which, since shortly after June 12, has been under the command of
Sergeant Benjamin Epstein. The number of policemen present, like the number of
pickets, normally reached its maximum at the beginning and end of each workday.
On June 11 the Company hired Thomas E Clemmey. He was supplied with a
moving picture camera, film, and an automobile. His only duty was to photograph
any activities by the pickets which were out of the ordinary. He performed this func-
tion, remaining within sight of the picket line during most of the workday, throughout
his employment, which ended July 29.
C. Obstructing entrances
The complaint as amended alleges, and the answer denies, that on about June 12,
between 7 and 11 a.m., in the presence of Company employees, the Respondents
"picketed the main and side gates of the Company plant in such a manner as to
obstruct the passage of vehicles attempting to enter or leave said plant . . . with an
object of preventing the employees of the Company and other individuals from
crossing the picket line."
On the morning of June 12 at or about 7.15 a.m. 40 or more pickets were congre-
gated near the Hunt-Shrewsbury intersection and in Hunt Street itself. Of these, at
least 20 were rank-and-file employees of the Company and a few were employees of
Emblem (see Appendix B). Andonian, Giguilliat, and Brouillette were among the
7 All dates herein refer to the year 1964.
8 The findings of fact with regard to the presence of the Respondents ' officials are based
upon a synthesis of the testimony of Virgil Cheseldine, a supervisor of Emblem , Marvin
C. Bonine, vice president and general manager of both companies , and Thomas E. Clem-
mey, an employee of the Company.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2118 1565
pickets. There were also five or six policemen present, in charge of Epstein. The
pickets in Hunt Street were "in a tight formation, belly to back ... shuffing along in a
slow motion ... they were more shufflng than they were walking, they were moving
very slowly." At approximately 7:15 a.m. an automobile driven by Robert McPher-
son, a rank-and-file employee of Emblem, arrived and turned from Shrewsbury Street
into Hunt. In the car as a passenger was Virgil E Cheseldine, head of Emblem's
enamel department. As the car headed south on Hunt Street toward gate A and
the parking lot, it was unable to pass, the pickets by their bodies blocked its forward
progress and it came to a halt. Andonian and Giguilliat were standing on the
Shrewsbury-Hunt Street curb on the corner, to the auto's immediate right. Policemen
passed through the center of the group of pickets temporarily making a path, but as
soon as they passed, the pickets closed in again "making it impossible to pass." After
remaining stationary for 2 or 3 minutes, the driver was then able to proceed through
the gate into the parking lot. As the automobile was passing the picket line, an egg
which "came from the mass of pickets" smashed against its side window.
About 7:25 a.m. a car driven by Emma Lounsbury, a forelady of Emblem, "nosed
into Hunt Street." In this automobile as a passenger was Howard Dauer, a foreman
of Emblem. As the car approached, Andonian and Giguilhat instructed the pickets:
"Here they come, sit down." Thereupon a number of pickets sat down in Hunt
Street, effectively blocking the car's progress. Andonian and Giguilliat joined them
in the street. The area covered by the sitting pickets was about 20 to 25 feet wide
across Hunt Street and approximately 5 or 6 feet deep into Hunt Street. The pickets
were sitting "a couple of feet away from each other and some were almost touching
each other." A second car stopped behind Lounsbury's, this was driven by Mary
Barber, a rank-and-file employee of Emblem. In it as passengers were three ladies,
not identified on the record. Behind Barber's car, a third automobile driven by an
unidentified person was also stopped. Meanwhile, the number of pickets present was
increasing. The efforts of police to clear Hunt Street enough to let automobiles
through into the parking lot met with only minor success Clemmey, who observed
these events from the parking lot, testified: "The police instructed the pickets to stand
up; and in a period of about ten minutes, the pickets sat down and stood up about
three times." Sergeant Epstein testified:
Occasionally pickets would sit down and I would talk to the pickets and ask them
to desist. After a while they'd get up; after they'd walk around, they'd sit again.
I got some vehicles in and some I didn't. Finally, I arrived at the point where
I had cars waiting to get in. Pickets were sitting down. I asked them to sit
aside and let the cars go through. If they did not, I'd be forced to take action.
I then went to my mouthspeaker on my car, and I gave them the same directions,
and I told them if they did not desist, I would place them under arrest. I then
called for the wagon ....
About 5 minutes later Cheseldine and several of the Company's supervisors attempted
to open the Hecla Street gate, which swings outward in two parts. A group of about
15 pickets (who had left the Hunt Street area in the meantime and walked around
the sidewalk to the Hecla Street gate) stood on the sidewalk and temporarily blocked
efforts to open the gate. This group included Brouillette and at least five other
employees of the Company and at least two employees of Emblem (see Appendix B).
Eventually the Hecla Street gate was opened. A short while later the automobile
driven by Lounsbury (which had meanwhile left Hunt Street and proceeded to Hecla
Street) "nosed into the gate opening." Then some of the pickets sat down in front
of the opening, preventing Lounsbury from driving her car through into the parking
lot. After about 2 or 3 minutes Lounsbury backed her car out and drove down Hecla
Street away from the gate, presumably returning to Hunt Street. The events at the
Hecla Street gate, just described, were observed by Clemmey from the parking lot.
At about 8:15 a.m. the patrol wagon which had been ordered by Sergeant Epstein
arrived in the vicinity of Shrewsbury and Hunt Streets. Sergeant Epstein announced
to the pickets sitting in Hunt Street that this was their "last chance" and if they did
not get up and let the cars in, he would be forced to place them under arrest. When
they did not move, the police arrested eight of them, lifting them by their armpits
and escorting them to the patrol wagon. Among those thus taken into custody and
1566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forcibly removed from Hunt Street were Andonian, Giguilliat, and Brouillette. After
the arrests the other pickets arose, moved aside, and the automobiles which had been
waiting were then able to proceed into the parking lot.9
From the above it is clear, and I find, that on June 12, from about 7.15 a.m. to
about 8:20 a.m., upon the verbal instructions of Andonian and Giguilliat, the pickets
obstructed and impeded the ingress of vehicles through gate A and the Hecla Street
gate into the parking lot shared by the Company and Emblem, and that this activity
was witnessed by Clemmey, an employee of the Company,1° McPherson and Barber,
employees of Emblem, and most if not all of the picketing employees listed in
Appendix B. It is further found that such conduct reasonably tended to intimidate,
coerce, and restrain these employees in the exercise of their right, protected by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, to cross the picket line, and go to work in the factory and/or to
cease picketing the Company's premises." Moreover, the Respondent's liability for
the pickets' conduct in this respect is clear, as they obeyed the express orders of two
officials of the Respondents acting within the scope of their authority.12
The Respondents in their brief argue that the above-described activities constituted
an "isolated phenomenon occurring for less than an hour in a strike which at the
time of the hearing was already on its fifth month." It is worth noting that the
alleged abbreviated length of the intimidatory conduct is of slight significance when
it is recalled that it was not stopped voluntarily but, on the contrary, was broken up
only by police intervention. One is tempted to speculate on how much longer it
might have continued had not the multiple arrests taken place when they did. More-
over, the record contains evidence that the Respondents' obstructive tactics of June 12
did not occur in a vacuum, but on the contrary took place against a backdrop of prior
violence. Thus Bonine testified without contradiction that "we had continual inci-
dents from the first day of the strike" and that in mid-June Edmund Hobbs, an
employee of Emblem, "attempted to walk through the picket line and was pushed
and shoved and manhandled by ... five or six pickets." Nor did the violence come
to a halt after June 12 despite the arrests. On cross-examination of Cheseldine, the
Respondents' counsel developed the fact that, as Cheseldine came to work on
August 26, Earl Dorsey, a picket, stood in front of Cheseldine's car "and it took him
some time to move." This took place in the presence of Giguilliat and in the pres-
ence of Ralph Sprogna, another employee of the Company. In the light of this
undenied testimony, and in view of other violence and threats which took place on
and after June 12, as recited below, I reject the Respondents' contention that the
pickets' blocking of the two gates of the plant on June 12 constituted an isolated
occurrence.
D. Threats
The complaint as amended alleges, and the answer denies, that on about June 12,
in the presence of Company employees, the Respondents by Bob Giguilliat, Charles
Pusek, Louis Iacovoni, and Adam Michelonis, threatened to inflict bodily injury upon
employees and supervisors of the Company and of Emblem, and on about June 24,
9 The findings of fact regarding the blocking of gate A and the Hecla Street gate on
June 12 are based upon a synthesis of the undenled testimony of Clemmey , Cheseldine,
and Sergeant Epstein.
10 The Respondents , in their joint brief , state: "There is a serious question raised as to
whether Clemmey was even an employee within the letter, if not the spirit, of the
law . . . . Both the terms and the temporary nature of his employment militate against
his being deemed to be an employee of the Charging Party within the meaning of the
Act." I cannot agree. A temporary worker is nonetheless an employee : the same is true
of one who performs duties that are not necessarily production , maintenance , or clerical.
It is accordingly found that, from June 11 to July 29, 1964, both dates inclusive, Clem-
mey was an employee of the Company as defined in Section 2(3) of the Act.
li Central Massachusetts Joint Board, Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO
(Chas. Weinstein Company, Inc.), 123 NLRB 590, at 609.
12 No finding of unfair labor practices is based upon the throwing of an egg toward the
car driven by McPherson on June 12 about 7:15 a.m. Nor are any findings of fact based
upon photographs introduced into evidence as General Counsel's exhibits.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2118 1567
by Iacovoni, threatened to inflict bodily injury upon Company employees "with an
object of preventing the employees of the Company and other individuals from cross-
ing the picket line."
As has been described above, on June 12 about 7:15 a.m. an auotmobile driven
by McPherson, in which Cheseldine was riding, was halted in Hunt Street by the
pickets. Giguilliat, who was standing next to the right side of the car and only about
2 feet from other pickets, told Cheseldine that Cheseldine's neck would be broken
before long and that he (Giguilliat) would break it. Pusek and Iacovoni walked to
the left (driver's) side of the car and said to Cheseldine in unison: "The Sons of
Italy have your picture, they've been paid to get you." Michelonis, standing directly
in front of the car in the mass of pickets stated that he and his brothers were going
to come to Cheseldine's home and rearrange Cheseldine's face. The inference is
warranted, and I find, that these threats were heard by McPherson and some of the
picketing employees listed in Appendix B.
A little later that morning, as the Hecla Street gate was being opened, Pusek and
Iacovoni told Basil Kimball, a supervisor employed by the Company, not to open
the gate, that they knew which street he lived on, that he lived in a freshly painted
white house, and they would be out to see him. When the car driven by Lounsbury
was halted by the pickets in front of the Hecla Street gate Michelonis, Iacovoni, and
Michael Corbett, another picket, told Dauer, the passenger in the car, that if he went
to work that morning his red head would be broken that night. Shortly after this,
all of the supervisory group except Cheseldine left the Hecla Street gate. Iacovoni
and Pusek remarked to Cheseldine that they were going to "get" him at the Main
Street office that morning.13 Michelonis stated to Cheseldine that he (Cheseldine)
was stupid and should have stayed away and that his wife and children "would be
taken care of." Iacovoni, while tossing a few small stones up and down in his hand,
asked Cheseldine how many pickets he could watch at one time. Cheseldine did not
reply. Iacovoni then, gesturing toward the group of pickets, asked Cheseldine what
would happen if somebody threw a brick at Cheseldine. Cheseldine again made no
response. The pickets at this time were occupying a space approximately 20 feet
long at the Hecla Street gate.14 It is reasonable to assume, and it is found, that each
of these remarks was heard by the pickets who were present, including Brouillette.
I am persuaded that each of the remarks related above constituted a threat to
inflict bodily harm upon a supervisor of either the Company or Emblem if he per-
sisted in crossing the picket line, that those made in Hunt Street were overheard by
McPherson and therefore reasonably tended to intimidate him, and that all the
remarks reasonably tended to coerce employees of the Company and of Emblem
who were present on the picket line, as listed in Appendix B. Furthermore, the
threat made by Giguilliat is attributable to the Respondents because uttered by an
agent acting within the scope of his authority. The Respondents are likewise respon-
sible for all the other threats of June 12 because the Respondents' agents in whose
presence they were uttered (Andonian and Giguilliat in Hunt Street; Brouillette in
Hecla Street), acting within the scope of their respective authorities, failed to repu-
diate the conduct of the pickets in question."
On June 24, about noon, Clemmey was standing with Marvin C. Bonine, vice
president and general manager of both Companies, and Raymond Burns, a super-
visor of the Company, on the west side of Hunt Street. Iacovoni was standing on
Hunt Street, about 50 to 60 feet from Clemmey and approximately 5 to 10 feet from
the picket line. In a "very threatening and . . . deliberate tone of voice" Iacovoni
told Clemmey that he would take the camera away from Clemmey "and shove it
up his ass." At the same time, Iacovoni made a gesture with his thumb.16 There
"This refers to a temporary office away from the premises which Cheseldine visited in
the mornings
14 The findings of fact regarding the remarks made by pickets on June 12 are based upon
Cheseldine 's undenled testimony . Although Kimball testified, he did not mention the
threat made to him.
16 Central Massachusetts Joint Board, Teotxle Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
( Chas Weinstein Company, Inc.), supra, at 591.
16 The findings of fact regarding this incident are based upon a synthesis of the un-
denied testimony of Clemmey and Bonine.
1568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
can be little doubt, and•I find, that this crude and obscene threat reasonably tended
to put Clemmey in fear of bodily injury, and thereby restrained him in the exercise
of his protected right to cross the picket line. The Respondents, in their brief, seek
to avoid responsibility for lacovoni's threat because of the asserted "failure [of the
General Counsel] to place an official of either of the Respondents at the scene."
This however is no defense. Assuming, without deciding, that the General Counsel
did not prove that an authorized agent of the Respondents was present, the Respond-
ents are nevertheless accountable for lacovoni's conduct because it conformed to the
pattern previously established by Giguilliat's threat to Cheseldine in McPherson's
presence on June 12 and other threats made by pickets on that date in the presence
of Andonian and Giguilliat.17
E. The use of mirrors
The complaint as amended alleges, and the answer denies, that in the presence of
Company employees, the Respondents on or about June 23 by Ralph Sprogna and
Dick Maynard and on or about June 26 by Ralph Sprogna, Charles Pusek, Paul
Catterson, and Paul Henderson, by using mirrors, reflected sunlight into the eyes of
certain operators of vehicles attempting to leave the Company plant, thereby obstruct-
ing and impeding the passage of such vehicles, "with an object of preventing the
employees of the Company and other individuals from crossing the picket line "
On June 23 at approximately 3:30 p.m. vehicles were leaving the parking lot, pro-
ceeding along Hunt Street towards its intersection with Shrewsbury. The record does
not identify the drivers of or passengers in these cars. About 20 pickets were present;
Clemmey was standing in the factory doorway taking pictures with a camera. Two
pickets standing on the east side of Hunt Street, each of whom held a mirror about
18 by 24 inches in size, aimed their mirrors in such a way as to reflect sunlight in
Clemmey's direction (presumably to spoil his film), then moved their bodies so that
the reflection passed from Clemmey to the vehicles as they were leaving the
parking lot.18
During mid-morning, or about noon, on either June 24 or June 25, a truck of
Buxton Scrap Metal Company, driven by a supervisor of that firm, was leaving the
Company's parking lot and proceeding out Hunt Street toward Shrewsbury. Bonine
was walking in front of the truck picking up nails. About 8 or 10 pickets were pres-
ent including Pete Sawicki, an employee of the Company. Two of them-Paul
Henderson and Paul Catterson-standing at the intersection of Hunt and Shrews-
bury Streets, used mirrors to reflect sunlight into the eyes of the operator as he drove
the truck along Hunt Street. This was witnessed by Clemnley.'9
On June 25 about 3.20 p m. Basil Kimball, a supervisor employed by the Com-
pany, drove the Company's pickup truck out through gate A into Hunt Street.
Clemmey was in the factory doorway with a camera taking pictures and Bonine was
nearby. There were approximately 12 pickets present, including Giguilliat and Adam
Michelonis, an employee of the Company. Charles Pusek and Ralph Sprogna were
standing in Hunt Street near Shrewsbury within a few feet of the other pickets, each
holding a mirror about 18 by 27 inches in size. As Kimball drove the truck along
17 Clemmey testified on direct examination that on June 12 at about 9.45 a m. he was
sitting in an automobile in the parking lot when a picket (identified through hearsay as
Charles Pusek) who was standing at gate A about 40 feet from Clemmey told Clemmey he
was "going to kill" Clemmey and "fix [him ] up" On cross -examination, however, Clem-
mey could not recall any incident on June 12 at about 9:45 a m. I therefore base no
findings on this testimony.
18 The findings of fact regarding this incident are based solely upon Clemmey 's undenied
testimony. Clemmey identified the pickets in question through hearsay as Ralph Sprogna
and Dick Maynard I deem it unnecessary to make a finding regarding their identity.
Although Maynard was a member of Respondent Local's negotiating committee, his
authority to represent the Union was limited to negotiations and cannot properly be
viewed as extending to picket line activities. Central Massachusetts Joint Board, Textile
Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO ( Chas . Weinstein Company, Inc ), supra, at 007.
19 The findings of fact regarding this incident are based upon a synthesis of the un-
denied testimony of Clemmey and Bonine
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2118 1569
Hunt Street, Pusek and Sprogna used their mirrors to flash the sun's rays into Kim-
ball's eyes, temporarily blinding him and forcing him to bring the truck to a momen-
tary halt. According to Kimball:
This was done time and time again for a period of maybe six or eight minutes,
or something like that; the same practice was repeated over and over until I
finally had advanced to the point where I could proceed with the truck safely
and the sun no longer could be reflected in my eyes, and I was able to proceed
out of Hunt Street into Shrewsbury Street.20
On June 26 about 1:52 p.m., a truck of Woicester Deburring Company was leav-
ing the Company's premises. The driver of the truck is not identified in the record.
There were about 10 to 15 pickets present. Paul Henderson, standing about 6 or 7
feet from the other pickets, used a mirror approximately 18 by 24 inches in size to
aim sunlight in the direction of the truck's driver. This was witnessed by Clemmey.21
In all four of these incidents mirrors were used in a manner calculated to increase
the hazard of driving a vehicle off the Company's premises and each event therefore
constituted a deliberate interference with and impediment to egress. The Buxton
incident was witnessed by Sawicki, the Kimball incident by Michelonis, and all four
by Clemmey. It is found that the incidents had a reasonable tendency to intimidate
these employees of the Company and to restrain them in the exercise of their right,
protected by Section 7 of the Act, to cross the picket line.22
The Respondents argue that, as to the mirror-flashing episodes, the General Coun-
sel's "failure to show any ratification or authorization by either Respondent pre-
cludes the finding of any unfair labor practice." But it has been found that Giguil-
hat was present on the picket line on June 25 about 3:20 p.m. when Pusek and
Sprogna reflected sunlight in Kimball's eyes in the presence of employees Michelonis
and Clemmey. As Giguilliat, acting within the scope of his authority as agent, took
no step to disavow this illegal conduct which he witnessed, the Respondents are liable
therefor. Moreover, Henderson's activities with relation to the Worcester Debur-
ring truck on June 26 about 1:52 p.m., described above, followed the pattern previ-
ously established and the Respondents are likewise accountable for his conduct on
that occasion.23
The General Counsel does not contend that reflecting sunlight toward Clemmey in
order to expose his film violated the Act.
F. Assaults
The complaint as amended alleges, and the answer denies, that in the presence of
Company employees the Respondent, through various named individuals and on
various dates between June 12 and July 3, 1964, both dates inclusive, inflicted or
25 The findings of fact regarding this incident are based upon a synthesis of the un-
contradicted testimony of Clemmey, Kimball, and Bonine. Kimball testified that Sergeant
Epstein was also present on this occasion , Epstein denied it. I deem it unnecessary to
resolve this conflict.
2 The findings of fact regarding this incident are based solely on Clemniey 's undenied
testimony. Clemmey was able to identify Henderson by having seen his photograph in a
newspaper.
22 The Respondents in their brief argue that the fact that Sawicki "was still on the
picket line at the date of the hearing is further evidence of the fact that he was not
restrained or coerced by anything he may have seen on the occasion." Of course it proves
nothing of the sort. Indeed, it could just as reasonably be urged that Sawicki's con-
tinuing presence on the picket line thereafter was an eloquent demonstration of how
effectively the mirror flashing had actually intimidated him from abandoning the strike.
In any event the test is the tendency of the conduct to coerce . Therefore , whether the
conduct did in fact succeed in coercing Sawicki is immaterial.
23I deem it unnecessary to determine whether the Respondents are responsible for the
mirror-flashing incident of June 23 or the occurrence of June 24 or 25 involving the
Buxton Scrap truck. Such determinations, if made, would merely be cumulative and
would not affect the scope of the order hereinafter recommended.
796-027-66-vol. 15 3-10 0
1570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attempted to inflict bodily injury upon certain persons and/or damaged or attempted
to damage certain property. The complaint recites 11 separate categories of such
alleged activities. For convenience, these allegations will be treated herein in three
different groups.
1. Assaults on supervisors
Under this category the complaint alleges three separate incidents- the throwing
of lighted firecrackers at supervisors of Emblem by Brouillette and Elliot on June 12,
the throwing of stones at supervisors of the Company by Catterson on June 17, and
similar conduct by Henderson on June 18.
It will be recalled that on the morning of June 12 Cheseldine went to the Hecla
Street gate with a group of supervisors and that about 7:45 a m. certain pickets
made verbal threats to him. Immediately after these threats were uttered Brouil-
lette and Derry Elliot, standing about 50 feet from Cheseldine, each threw an explo-
sive missile toward Cheseldme. One passed Cheseldine's face and struck a building
behind him, the other struck his left foreleg; both exploded. Cheseldine sustained a
wound in his leg which required medical attention and caused him several hours'
loss of working time. The incident was partially seen and heard by Clemmey who
was nearby. Moreover, as the pickets had an unobstructed view, it is a reasonable
assumption, and I find, that it was seen and/or heard by most if not all of the pickets
who were employees of the Company and of Emblem, as listed in Appendix B, des-
ignated by an asterisk.24
On June 17 at about 2:20 p.m. Bonine and Clemmey were standing on the roof
of the factory; Bonine had a camera in his hand. Paul Catterson was standing in
Hunt Street about 70 feet away. The picket line was about 15 to 30 feet from where
Catterson stood and nothing obstructed the view between them. Catterson threw
three or four rocks at Bonine and Clemmey, the last of which Bonine attempted to
photograph. No stone hit either man.25
On June 18 about 9:52 a.m. Raymond Burns, a supervisor employed by the Com-
pany, was walking in the parking lot. Pickets were picketing in Hunt Street close
to Shrewsbury. Paul Henderson was standing in Hunt Street near gate A, about 60
feet from the picket line, there was nothing obstructing the pickets' view of Hender-
son. Henderson threw a stone at Burns The stone bounced off the wall directly
over Burns' head but did not hit him. The incident was seen by Clemmey, who
was standing on the factory roof 26
I find that all three of these assaults upon supervisors were witnessed by Clem-
mey. Moreover, the incident involving Cheseldine was witnessed by employee pick-
ets. These assaults therefore reasonably tended to intimidate and restrain employees
from crossing the picket line. The Respondents are clearly responsible for the first
of these assaults-that of June 12 upon the person of Cheseldine-because one of
the perpetrators was Brouillette, an agent of the Respondents acting within the scope
of his authority. As to the remaining two assaults on June 17 and 18, the Respond-
ents are accountable for the actions of the stone throwing pickets-Catterson in one
case and Henderson in the other-because this conduct conformed to the pattern
set earlier , on June 12, by Brouillette.
2. Assaults on employees
Under this category the complaint alleges the throwing of stones on various dates,
the throwing of lighted firecrackers on June 17, the throwing of nails on June 16,
and the throwing of eggs on June 17, at employees of the Company and of Emblem.
On June 17 between 12:30 and 1 p.m. two employees of Emblem, Beverly Blanch-
ard and Bessie Chioda, having eaten lunch in a car on the parking lot about 50 feet
from the gate, began walking across the parking lot toward the factory. In the
'The findings of fact regarding this episode are based upon Cheseldine's undenied
testimony, corroborated by that of Clemmey.
I The findings of fact regarding this incident are based upon Bonine's undenied testi-
mony, corroborated in part by that of Clemmey.
21 The findings of fact regarding this event are based solely upon Clemmey's undenied
testimony . Clemmey Identified Henderson by having seen his photograph in a newspaper.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2118 1571
plant doorway at the time were Lucille De Mille and Mary Normandy, also employ-
ees; Clemmey was on the factory roof about 30 feet from Blanchard. There was a
picket line. Henderson, who was standing in front of the other pickets, threw a
firecracker at Blanchard and Chioda, which exploded about 6 inches from Blanchard 2
The Respondents in their brief point out that after the firecracker exploded the
three major part icipants-Henderson, Blanchard, and Chioda-all laughed. They
urge that this incident "smacks of picket line horseplay devoid of sinister purpose "
Whatever the episode might have been considered had it stood alone, the fact is that
it took place only a few days after Cheseldine was injured by a picket-thrown explo-
sive object. This underscored to pickets and nonstrikers alike the danger inherent
in the indiscriminate use of firecrackers and similar explosives. In this context I
cannot accept the valuation placed upon Henderson's conduct by the Respondents.
Instead I view the matter with serious concern and conclude that the assault reason-
ably tended to intimidate and coerce the employees who were the targets of Hender-
son's act (Blanchard and Chioda) and those employeees who witnessed it (Clem-
mey, De Mille, and Normandy) in the exercise of their protected right to cross the
picket line.28
On June 23 at approximately 11:30 a.m. Clemmey and Donald Reichel, an
employee of the Company, were in the factory doorway. There were about eight
pickets present. A picket standing on Shrewsbury Street near the intersection of
Hunt threw several stones (from 2 to 10) at Clemmey and Reichel. While this was
happening, Clemmey attempted to take photographs of the picket in action.29 It is
found that the pickets' conduct on this occasion had a reasonable tendency to restrain
Clemmey and Reichel, both employees of the Respondent,30 in the exercise of their
protected right to cross the picket line.
About 1:52 p.m. that same day Clemmey was sitting in the factory doorway; there
were still about eight pickets present. A picket who was leaning against a light post
at the corner of Hunt and Shrewsbury Streets, about 5 feet from the other pickets,
threw two stones in Clemmey's direction. One stone shattered a window of the
factory and glass fell inside, cutting Elmer Pelkey, an employee of the Company who
was working inside. He was given first aid treatment and returned to work about
15 to 20 minutes later.31 It is found that this assault reasonably tended to coerce
Clemmey and Pelkey, both employees of the Company,32 and to intimidate those
employees of the Company or Emblem working inside the factory at the time who
heard the window being broken or saw Pelkey's injury,33 in the exercise of their
right to ignore the picket line and come to work.
zx The findings of fact regarding this episode are based upon the undenied testimony of
Blanchard , corroborated by that of Clemmey.
2' Although Blanchard, Chioda, De Mille, and Normandy were employees of Emblem
rather than of the Company, they were nevertheless employees within the meaning of the
Act who enjoyed the protection of Section 7 of the Act
29 The findings of fact regarding this assault are based upon a synthesis of the un-
denied testimony of Clemmey and Reichel. Clemmey identified the picket in question,
through hearsay, as John Naum. I deem it unnecessary to make a finding regarding the
picket's identity.
20 In their brief of the Respondents take the position that Reichel, because he is a
temporary employee and Bonine's son-in-law, "is not an employee within the meaning of
the Act " I find no merit in the contention and conclude that on June 23, 1964, Riechel
was an employee of the Company within the meaning of the Act.
31 The findings of fact regarding this event are based upon a synthesis of the undenied
testimony of Clemmey and Pelkey. Clemmey identified the picket in question as Charles
Pusek ; I make no finding respecting his identity.
83 The Respondents in their brief point out that Pelkey "appears to look for work
only where Respondent International is involved in a labor dispute" and went to work for
the Company after the strike began with "motivation ... which appears to be rather
obvious" and urge that "because of these motivations any job he holds is necessarily of
too temporary a nature to warrant his being considered an employee within the meaning
of the Act " In my opinion this argument is singularly devoid of merit I find that on
June 23, 1964, Pelkey was an employee of the Company within the definition contained in
Section 2 (8) of the Act.
33 Since it was during working hours, I assume that other employees beside Pelkey
were at work See Vindicator Printing Company, 151 NLRB 1558.
1572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All three of these assaults-the throwing of a firecracker at female employees of
Emblem on June 17 in Clemmey's presence, the rock-throwing at Clemmey and
Reichel on June 23, and the injury of Pelkey on the same day, followed the example
set by Brouillette a few days earlier (June 12) when he threw an explosive missile at
Cheseldine. For this reason the Respondents are liable for the conduct of the pick-
ets who made these three assaults upon employees.
Clemmey testified without contradiction that between June 12 and July 3, both
dates inclusive, he was the victim of more than a dozen assaults by pickets. It would
unduly lengthen this Decision to relate every detail of these incidents or to make
specific findings with regard to each event. I deem it sufficient to find, as I do, that
during this period Clemmey was assaulted numerous times by various pickets throw-
ing (or propelling through a slingshot) stones, eggs, or explosives at him, that on
one occasion a stone struck his person, that twice the automobile in which he was
sitting was damaged by stones, and that in several instances the missiles hurled at
Clemmey broke windows in the factory. I conclude that such occurrences reason-
ably tended to coerce Clemmey. Moreover, it is found that the window breaking
likewise intimidated employees working inside the factory at the time. I hold the
Respondents responsible for all these illegal activities on the picket line aimed at
Clemmey because, as related above, Brouillette was present on the picket line during
part of this period and Giguilliat was present virtually all the time, and the pickets'
assaults were so numerous that it is reasonable to assume, and I find, that Brouillette
and/or Giguilliat must have been aware of them. Under these circumstances, the
failure of the Respondents' agent or agents to take any steps to repudiate the activi-
ties of the pickets is decisive of the Respondents' liability therefor
The Respondents in their brief defend against accountability for the assaults upon
Clemmey by arguing that he "was hired solely to goad picketers into taking actions
toward him that might later be construed as unfair labor practices," that "the pur-
pose of the camera was ... to try to create some unlawful activity based upon which
an unfair labor practice could be alleged" and that "each of the alleged incidents
discussed in this category appears to have been intentionally provoked by Clemmey."
I cannot agree. Unless it can be said that the use of a camera to photograph pickets
is per se provocation, there is no evidence that Clemmey taunted the pickets or said
or did anything to invite reprisals. In any event, it is well settled that misconduct on
the part of an employer or his agents (even the commission of unfair labor practices)
cannot justify picket line violence by a union.34
3. Strewing nails
Under this category the complaint alleges "the throwing or placing of nails on the
road leading through the main gate of the Company plant by Paul Henderson on
June 22, 1964, thereby causing or attempting to cause damage to vehicles passing
through the main gate."
On June 22 about 3:15 p.m. there was a picket line near the Hunt-Shrewsbury
Street intersection. Henderson, standing on the Shrewsbury Street sidewalk outside
the new gate, about 3 or 4 feet from the other pickets, threw some nails, head down,
onto Hunt Street, inside the new gate. At the time Clemmey and Bonine were
standing in the factory doorway and saw Henderson's activity 35 It is found that
such conduct was calculated to impede and interfere with the movement of vehicles
out of the parking lot, and had a reasonable tendency to intimidate Clemmey, who
witnessed it, in the exercise of his statutory rights. Moreover, this activity con-
formed to the conduct of the pickets on June 12, under the direction of two official
of the Respondents, when they blocked vehicles coming into the parking lot by sit-
ting in the street. Accordingly, the Respondents are liable for the action of Hender-
son on June 22 of strewing nails upon the street.36
11 Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Ohio Consolidated Telephone Com-
pan,y), 120 NLRB 684, at 686-687.
as The findings of fact regarding this event are based upon Clemmey's undenied testi-
mony, corroborated by that of Bonine.
81 In addition to the incidents described herein, Clemmey testified without contradic-
tion concerning still other picket line activities. In my opinion, it would unduly lengthen
this Decision to discuss any additional incidents It is enough to find, as I do, that the
numerous episodes related above support the allegations of the complaint. Any further
findings would merely be cumulative and would have no effect on the scope of the remedy.
See Oi Nn. Exterminating Company of Florida, Inc, 152 NLRB 83, footnote 2 ; and Sullivan
Surplus Sales, Inc., 152 NLRB 132, footnote 3.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2118 1573
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Worcester Stamped Metal Company is, and at all material times has been, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 2118, each is, and
at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3 By restraining and coercing employees of the above-named Company in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(1(A) of
the Act.
4. The above-described unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce, and constitute
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and uopn the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The activities of the Respondents described above exhibit wanton and callous dis-
regard for the statutory rights of employees protected by Section 7 of the Act.
Because of the basic purpose and tendency of this unlawful conduct, it is concluded
that there exists danger that the Respondents will in the future commit other unfair
labor practices. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Respondents cease
and desist, not only from the unfair labor practices found, but also from in any other
manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
It is accordingly recommended that Respondents, United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, and its Local 2118, Worcester, Massachusetts, their officers, representa-
tives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees of Worcester Stamped Metal Company by
obstructing, impeding, or interfering with the ingress of vehicles and people into or
the egress of vehicles and people out of the Company's plant (by sitting in the road-
way, by using mirrors or similar devices to reflect sunlight into the eyes of operators
of vehicles, by placing nails or other objects upon the roadway, or by any other
means); by threatening to inflict or inflicting bodily injury upon supervisors, employ-
ees of the Company, or other persons because they cross a picket line established by
the Respondents; or by damaging property
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing the employees of Worcester
Stamped Metal Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act:
(a) Promptly upon receipt from the Regional Director for Region 1 of copies of
the attached notice, marked "Appendix C," 37 cause such copies to be signed by a
representatives of each of the Respondents and posted in conspicuous places at its
offices and meeting places in Worcester, Massachusetts, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted.
(b) Maintain such posting for 60 consecutive days, during which reasonable steps
shall be taken to prevent such notices from being altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Promptly upon receipt from the said Regional Director of additional copies
of the said notice cause such additional copies to be signed as aforesaid and returned
to the Regional Director for posting by Worcester Stamped Metal Company, if that
company is willing.
37 If this Recommended Order should be adopted by the Board, the words "the Recom-
mended Order of a Trial Examiner" shall be stricken from the notice, and the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted therefor . If the Board 's Order should be en-
forced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decision and"
shall be stricken from the notice and the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an" shall be substituted therefor.
1574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Decision,38 what steps they have taken to comply herewith.
11 If this Recommended Order should be adopted by the Board, the words 1120 days from
the receipt of this Decision" shall be stricken, and the words '110 days from the date of
this Order" shall be substituted therefor.
APPENDIX A
W ^.
(1S 33/d A7N3MN0J) 133111 S V703H
It SO i
l^
- M Ov're P r N
^
oti
o c 1
1 !x
t)^N!/ Nf7N arrwI
t
S -..M,oz. PJN1•
7IA
P
R1
391r â–º 0
X-7070 3l3r5N0l
of
a,
5O
x^
V^
.9
-
Q/
HEINRICH MOTORS, INC. 1575
APPENDIX B
Rank-and-file-employees of Worcester Stamped Metal Company present on picket
line at Hunt Street enrance, June 12, 1964, 7:15 a.m.
Donathan Giguilliat
(Bob Ginlat)
*Michael Corbett
*Raymond Brouillette
John Naum
*Derry Elliot
Earl Dorsey
*William Capers
Rank-and-file employees
same place and time:
*Charles Pusek
Paul Henderson
*Indicates employees
morning.
Tom Rossio Gene Basili
*Richard Maynard Frank Paduano
*Adam Michelonis Robert Jodoin
Paul Catterson Andrew Sprogna
John Elusiano (Luciaro) Homer Lajoie
Pete Sawicki Emilio (Chico) Viscardi
Pasquale (Patsy) Charles Fagan
Bowento
of American Emblem Company present on picket line at
*Louis Iacovoni *Hugh Rankin
Roger Pollisack
present on picket line at Hecla Street entrance the same
APPENDIX C
NOTICE
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 all our members, officers, representatives,
and agents and all employees of Worcester Stamped Metal Company that:
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Worcester Stamped Metal
Company by blocking or trying to block the movement of trucks, cars, or people
into or out of the plant, by harming or threatening to harm employees because
they cross the picket line , by assaulting or threatening to assault supervisors or
officials, or by damaging or trying to damage property.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner coerce or restrain employees of the above-
named company in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
LOCAL 2118, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they 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.
Heinrich Motors, Inc. and International Union , United Automo-
bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO. Case No. 3-CA-2334. July 23, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 26,1965, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
153 NLRB No. 139.