Industrial Union of Marine, Etc. Locals 5 & 90

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 412 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent has not unlawfully refused to bargain in violation of Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
AFL-CIO and its Locals No. 5 and 90 and American Federation
of Technical Engineers , AFL-CIO and its Local No. 151 and
Bethlehem Steel Company. Cases Nos. 1-CB-635 and 1-CB-636.
February 17, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 23, 1960, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding
that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Industrial Un-
ion of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The other Respondents filed neither exceptions nor briefs herein.
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 Leedom and Members
Fanning and Kimball].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Industrial Union
of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO and its
Locals No. 5 and 90, and American Federation of Technical Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO and its Local No. 151, their officers, representatives,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from restraining and coercing the employees
of Bethlehem Steel Company at its Quincy, Massachusetts, yard, in
130 NLRB No. 39.
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 413
the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, by barring
ingress or egress to employees, supervisors, or managerial personnel
through mass obstructive picketing, physical force, assaults, threats
of violence, and the imposition of restrictions and limitations, or by
like or related conduct.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in their business offices, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed
by a responsible official of each Respondent, be posted by the Respond-
ents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for
a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the First Region signed
copies of the notice, for posting, the Company willing, for a period
of 60 days, on its bulletin boards in the yard or buildings in Quincy,
Massachusetts, where notices to its Quincy employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents
have taken to comply herewith.
1 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INDUSTRIAL TJNION OF MARINE AND SHIP-
BUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO AND ITS LOCALS No. 5
AND 90, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO
AND ITS LOCAL No. 151, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF BETHLEHEM STEEL
COMPANY AT ITS QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS, YARD
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 give notice that :
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Bethlehem
Steel Company at its Quincy, Massachusetts, yard, in the exercise
of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, by barring ingress or
egress to employees, supervisors, or managerial personnel through
mass obstructive picketing, physical force, assaults, and threats
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of violence , and the imposition of restrictions and limitations,
or by like or related conduct.
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING
WORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated-- -------------- By-------------------------------------
(Title of Officer)
LOCAL No. 5,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By------------=------------------------
(Title of Officer)
LocAL No. 90,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Title of Officer)
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL
ENGINEERS , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated--- ------------- By-------------------------------------
(Title of Officer)
LOCAL No. 151,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Title of Officer)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Bethlehem Steel Company , herein called Bethlehem or the
Charging Party or .the Company, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston , Massachusetts),
issued his consolidated complaint , dated March 25, 1960 , against Industrial Union
of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO and its Locals Nos. 5
and 90, and upon American Federation of Technical Engineers , AFL-CIO and its
Local No . 151, herein respectively called IUMSWA, Local 5 and Local 90, AFTE,
and Local 151, and collectively called the Respondents . With respect to the unfair
labor practices , the complaint alleges, in substance , that : ( 1) Respondents picketed
and caused to be picketed the gates and entrances to Bethlehem 's Quincy yard so
as to bar egress and ingress to supervisors and employees ; (2) Local 5 and Local 151
assaulted an employee ; and (3 ) by the foregoing conduct Respondents restrained and
coerced employees in the exercise of their statutory rights and thereby engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 81(b)(1)(A ) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
In their duly filed answers , each Respondent admits the commerce allegations of
the complaint and its status as a labor organization but denies all unfair labor prac-
tice allegations.
Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held before Louis Libbin, the duly desig-
nated Trial Examiner , at various intervals during the period from May 12 to Jane
15, 1960 , at Boston , Massachusetts . All parties were represented at the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 415
witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument at the close of the
hearing, and thereafter to file briefs as well as proposed findings of fact and con-
clusions of law. On August 2, 1960, the Charging Party filed a brief which I have
fully considered.
Upon the entire record I in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY
Bethlehem, a Delaware corporation , maintains a principal office and place of
business in Quincy, Massachusetts, herein called the Quincy yard, where it is engaged
in the construction and repair of ships and the manufacture of certain products.
During the past year, Bethlehem has purchased materials for the building and repair
of its ships, valued in excess of $1,000,000, which materials were shipped to it from
points outside the Commovealth of Massachusetts.
Upon the above-admitted facts, I find that Bethlehem is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act,
H. THE RESPONDENTS t
The complaint alleges, the Respondeeta- admit, tk - record shows, and I find that
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbul uI Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
herein called IUMSWA; its L „als Nos. 5 and 90, herein called Local 5 and Local
`90; American Federation of Technical ,Engineers AFL-CIO, herein called AFTE;
and its Local No. 151, herein called i".cal 151, ar ea h labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
As previously noted , there are five Respondents in this case : Local 5 ; Local 90;
their International , IUMSWA ; Local 151 ; and its International , AFTE. Bethlehem
employed at its Quincy yard between 12,000 to 13 ,000 people. Until July 31, 1959,
there were collective -bargaining agreements in effect between Bethlehem and
IUMSWA, including Locals 5 and 90 , covering Quincy yard employees . There was
also a collective-bargaining agreement in effect until September . 30, 1959 , between
Local 151 of AFTE and Bethlehem , covering Quincy yard employees. Local 5
.represented about 6 ,500 production and maintenance hourly paid employees; Local
90 represented about 1 ,200 office clerical and technical salaried employees; and
Local 151 represented about 832 draftsmen. As a result of failure to arrive at terms
for new collective-bargaining agreements , the members of all three locals went out
on strike in January 1960; Local 5 on January 23, Local 90 on January 24, and
Local 151 on January 25. This strike was still in effect as of the time of the hearing
in this proceeding.
B. The issues
The principal entrances and gates to Bethlehem 's Quincy yard are the Hill Avenuo
gate, Howard Street gate , main gate, South Street gate , Washington Street gate, and
the main office building entrance . The Company 's administration building is located
across the street from the main office building. Picket lines were maintained at these
entrances and buildings throughout the course of the strike . The issues in this case
are (1 ) whether the picketing was carried on in such manner as to prevent physically
company personnel and employees from ingress and egress , and whether one person
was physically assaulted, (2) whether such conduct , if it occurred , constituted
restraint and coercion of employees within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of
the Act, and (3 ) which , if any, of the Respondents were liable for such conduct.
C. Principal events relied on by the General Counsel and the Charging Party as
being unlawful
The principal strike leaders at the Quincy yard were the following:
For Local 5-Robert J . Kehoe, president; Ronald Orcutt , vice president; James
McGonigal , executive secretary ; Paul McVey, secretary and member of negotiating
lI hereby note and correct the following inconsequential but obvious typographical
errors in the typewritten transcript of the testimony : On page 130, line 23, "January 27"
is corrected to read "January 25"; on page 158, line 8, "January 25" is corrected to read
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
committee; James Smith, trustee and picket captain; William Caruso, shop steward;
and Joseph Duffy, picket captain.
For Local 90-Arthur Fitzgerald, president and member of negotiating commit-
tee; J. Wilfred Shelley, vice president and member of negotiating committee; Charles
Johnston, treasurer; and James Kilroy, trustee.
For Local 151-Richard Nash, president and member of Local negotiating com-
mittee; James D. Hutchinson, recording secretary and member of negotiating com-
mittee; William E. Rotch, secretary and member of negotiating committee; and
Robert Nash, chief steward and chief picket captain. The foregoing were also
members of the strike committee for the purpose of helping to make the strike
more effective.
The factual findings in this section are lased primarily on evidence and credited
testimony which is undisputed.2 Only Respondent Local 151 called any witnesses
to testify in its behalf, and that was President Richard Nash. The incidents, herein-
after set forth, occurred during the period from January, 23 to March 23, 1960.
1. Chronological description of picket line incidents
a. January 23-at main office building
On January 23, Samuel Wakeman , the general manager of the Quincy yard, made
two attempts to gain eritrarrct tt the main--pi"iice building. The first attempt was
made about 10 a in. As the approiru the building , about seven pickets, who were
picketing in front of the door in a notating fashion, hied up across the front of the
door. Wakeman identified himsel stated that he had an office in that building,
and asked permission to enter. ,14rte?, was informed by the pickets that "no one gets in
here." With his hands in his i'iockets , w"Leman then unsuccessfully attempted to
shoulder his way through the seve.__"icke• whose bodies were packed close together.
When he tried to move around the picket line both in a northerly and southerly
direction , the picket line shifted in the same direction and remained between him
and the glass doors. Wakeman thereupon returned to the administration building,
which was across the street.
About an hour later, Wakeman returned with his associate , Mr. Budd who also
had an office in the building . By that time the picket line had grown to about 25 to
30 pickets , circulating in front of the building with signs stating "Local 5 on Strike."
As the two men approached the line, the pickets stopped circulating and massed in
front of the glass doors . Wakeman again introduced himself and his associate and
stated that they wanted to enter the building where they had offices and responsi-
bilities to perform . They were again informed that "no one will get through here."
At Wakeman 's request , about eight policemen formed a wedge in between the massed
bodies of the pickets , and Wakeman and Budd were pushed through the pickets and
projected through the glass doors into the building , while the pickets were yelling
"don't let them in." But sustained a laceration to his leg.
b. January 25-at the main office building
About 8:30 a.m., Wakeman and 7 of his associates approached the main office
building where about 100 pickets stopped rotating and massed in front of the glass
doors, booing and yelling "don't let them in." Wakeman saw Robert Kehoe, presi-
dent of Local 5, among the pickets, and identified himself and requested permission
for him and his associates to enter the building where they had business to perform.
Kehoe asked, "Sam, will you sign a contract with us?" Wakeman replied, "No,
I can't sign a contract with you." Whereupon Kehoe stated that Wakeman could get
in "but no one else." At Wakeman's request, the police captain of the Quincy police
force and seven patrolmen tried to part the massed pickets with their hands and arms
to clear an area for the men to enter. The pickets pushed the police back into the
middle of the street. The police captain then told Wakeman that they could not
get them through.
Wakeman then crossed the street to the administration building where Local 151
was maintaining a picket line of about 15 or 16 pickets. As he attempted to pass
between the rotating picket line and a bank near the sidewalk, one of the circulating
pickets stepped out of the line and banged him in the ribs with his elbow. Wakeman
continued completely around the line into the street where he told Richard Nash,
president of Local 151, that one of his pickets had lammed Wakeman in the ribs.
Nash replied that "some of our people are new." Wakeman then passed around the
2 Material conflicts in testimony will be indicated when they occur.
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 417
same picket line again to enter the administration building and was jammed a second
time in the ribs by the same picket.
c. January 26-at the main office building and main gate
About 8:30 a.m., Wakeman and seven associates again made an effort to enter
the main office building. About 40 to 50 pickets, who had been circulating in front
of the door, massed their bodies in tight packed formation in front of the glass doors.
Wakeman identified himself, stated that the men with him were nonstrikers with
offices and responsibilities inside the building, and asked the pickets to pass them
through. Kehoe, president of Local 5, who was also with his group, stated, "No,
we will not pass your group through." Wakeman then asked Police Captain Wuerth
to gain entrance for him and his associates. Wuerth and seven patrolmen tried to
penetrate through the massed pickets but were unable to create a space for the men
to get into the building. There was a lot of shoving and pushing by the pickets
who kept yelling, "Don't let them in." Captain Weurth then told Wakeman that
he could not gain access for them.
About an hour later, Wakeman and seven other management representatives at-
tempted to gain entrance into the Quincy yard through the main gate. Between 60 to,
80 pickets were circulating in front of the main gate. As the management group.
approached the gate, the picket line was supplemented by pickets who came from the
west side of East Howard Street in response to the urgings of McGonigal, executive
secretary of Local 5, who was calling through a megaphone for "Local 5 boys [to]
come get in the line." The pickets stopped rotating and stood in front of the manage-
ment group. Wakeman identified himself and his group to Jim Smith, picket captain
of Local 5, and asked to be passed through because they had offices and responsibili-
ties in the yard. Smith replied, "You don't get through here." Wakeman then made
the same request of Kehoe, who was standing close to him. Kehoe, president of
Local 5, stated that Wakeman could go in "but no one else." After a request for
police assistance, seven policemen, under Captain Wuerth, attempted to force an
opening of the massed group of stationary pickets who were yelling "don't let
them in." The management group and the police were pushed back into the street;
whereupon, Captain Weurth told Wakeman that the police could not get them in.
d. January 27-at the main office building
Milton J. Rogers, a company chauffeur, drove up to the main office building to.
deliver the mail which he had picked up at the Quincy post office. There were about
10 to 12 pickets at the main office building. Among them was Charles Johnston,
treasurer of Local 90. As Rogers got out of the car to remove the mail, Johnston
came over and said, "No, you are not going to take the mail in today." Rogers
replied that it was wrong to prevent him from going in with the mail. James Hutchin-
son, recording secretary of Local 151, who was in the picket line and overheard'
this conversation, went to the main gate and returned with Jimmy Smith, picket
captain of Local 5. Smith then told Johnston not to "be a fool" and "don't ever
stop the U.S. mail when Milt or the other drivers bring it in." Rogers was thereupon
permitted to unload the mail and to deliver it to the mailroom in the main office-
building.
e. February 2-at all gates and main office building
On this day, Ferguson R. Jansen, assistant manager of the Quincy yard, made the
following six attempts to enter the yard, accompanied by management representatives:
The first attempt was made at the main gate with 12 management representatives.
When this group arrived at the gate, there were about 60 people in the picket line
circulating around in front of the gate. Several pickets placed themselves directly
in front of the management group. Among the group were Picket Captains Duffy
and Smith and Vice President Orcutt, all of Local 5. Jansen identified himself
and his group, stated that they all had business in the yard, and requested them to
open the line or stand aside so that they could go through. Duffy stated that Jansen
could go through "but the others cannot." The management group then attempted
to push their way bodily through the massed pickets. Smith yelled out, "Shall
we let them in?" There was a loud chorus of noes in reply. The entire management
group was then bodily pushed back into the middle of the street.
The same management group then proceeded to walk to the South Street gate,
followed by 15 to 20 pickets from the main gate, who joined the picket line circulat-
ing in front of the South Street gate, increasing the number of pickets there to about
50. Picket Captain McCall and Vice President Orcutt, both of Local 5, were in the-
597254 -a i-vol . 130-28
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
group. Jansen made the same statement and request, and McCall refused to permit
.the group to enter. The management group made a similar attempt to push their
way through the massed pickets and were again pushed back into the middle of the
street.
The same management group then proceeded to the main office building, again
followed by 15 to 20 pickets who joined the pickets circulating in front of the main
,office building, thus swelling their number to about 45. Vice President Orcutt of
Local 5 identified himself as the picket captain in this group. Jansen made the same
statement and request; Orcutt made the same reply, refusing to let the group through.
With the aid of six or seven policemen, the group pushed the pickets to try to open
up the line. Again the cry was raised, "Shall we let them in?" And the pickets
.chorused back "Na." The management group as well as the police were pushed
back again into the middle of the street.
The same group then went to the Howard Street gate, again accompanied by
.bout 15 to 20 pickets who joined the pickets at the Howard Street gate, thereby
increasing the number to about 35. Before the management group arrived there,
all pickets from Locals 90 and 151 were instructed by Picket Captain Smith of
Local 5 to get out of the line and go across the street.3 Orcutt again identified him-
self as picket captain and, in response to Jansen's similar statement and request,
replied that Jansen could go in but "nobody else." The management group, again
with the assistance of the police force, attempted to push their way through the
massed pickets, but were in turn pushed back to the middle of the street.
About a half-hour later, Jansen and another group of six management representa-
tives proceeded to the Hill Avenue gate. The group was again followed by pickets
and strikers who joined the pickets at the Hill Avenue gate. Orcutt again identified
himself as picket captain and again stated that Jansen could go in "but the others
cannot." McGonigal, executive secretary of Local 5, ordered the line to open up for
Jansen. A passage way opened up in the middle of the picket line through which
Jansen proceeded with six associates. When Jansen was almost all the way through,
the line closed up behind him, barring those with him from coming through. They
were unsuccessful in their effort to open up the line again, although they pushed and
shoved for several minutes.
The same management group then proceeded to the Washington Street gate, ac-
'companied by Orcutt, Smith, and other pickets. The same requests were made
and the same answers were given by Orcutt. Again the line closed up after making
a passage way for Jansen, and kept his associates from going through although they
straggled physically to open the line. While they were struggling in this manner
to open up the line, Picket Captain Smith stated to one of the management repre-
sentatives, "You'd better look out or you'll get a punch in the nose." As the group
walked back to the administration building, Orcutt stopped Jansen and said,
"Well, if you keep this up, I don't know how much longer I'll be able to control our
people."
f. February 5-at the main office building
On that day, Joseph J. Mullin, Respondent's industrial relations manager at the
Quincy yard, accompanied by his associate and two attorneys, went to the main
office building for the purpose of attending a meeting. A group of six or seven
pickets from Local 151 were picketing at that time on the sidewalk in front of the
main office building. The group went around the picket line to the entrance door.
Gilmartin, one of the Local 151 pickets, had left the line and had jumped on the
platform to the entrance door, stretched out his arms and prevented Mullin from
opening the door to get into the building. Mullin stated that he had to get into the
building in order to attend a meeting in which the men with him were to participate.
Gilmartin replied, "You're not going to get in. No one will be going in." At that
point General Manager Wakeman came along and was informed of the situation
by Mullin. Wakeman stepped in front of Mullin, and told Gilmartin that he was
the manager of the Quincy yard and that he had an office in the building and wanted
to get in. Gilmartin then stated, "I guess you can get in, but nobody else can."
When Mullin tried to follow Wakeman, Gilmartin closed the door. Mullin then
told a policeman, who was standing nearby, that he desired to gain entrance to
attend a meeting The policeman whistled for additional police. At that point, Joe
Duffy, a picket captain of Local 5 stationed at the main gate, told Gilmartin that
he would have to allow the group to enter. Gilmartin thereupon stepped aside, and.
the group entered. _
.3 Apparently there were no pickets from Locals 90 and 151 in the line at that time.
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 419
g. February 29-relating to use of Cities Service property
During the strike, the Company had set up a temporary office in an unoccupied
building on the Cities Service property, which is contiguous to the Quincy yard. On
the afternoon of February 29, Robert Nash, chief steward and chief picket captain
of Local 151, appeared on the premises and asked Clarence H. Goldwaite, assistant
manager of the technical department, what was going on. Goldwaite explained
about the setting up of temporary offices. Nash replied that "we heard you were
out here in order to go through the city service property into the shipyard to get
anybody out you wanted to," and warned that "if anybody went through the city
service gates, there would be bloodshed."
About 4:30 that same afternoon, Glen D. Goode, an assistant superintendent of
machinery, was assaulted on company property after leaving the Quincy yard where
he bad been living and working since the commencement of the strike, under circum-
stances hereinafter detailed. About 8:30 that night, Robert Nash spoke about the
assault to Milton Rogers, a company chauffeur, on the front steps of the administra-
tion building. Nash stated that he hoped the Company would not try to sneak
any more men out of the yard the way they sneaked Goode out because if they
did, "a great many more heads may be punched in."
h. March 14-at main office building and main gate
George R. Maclary, a mail clerk employed by the Company and also a member
of Local 90, had occasion to go to the main office building about 8:10 that morning.
About 11 men were picketing in front of the entrance to the building. Robert Nash,
chief steward and chief picket captain of Local 151, was in the group, as was Parsons,
a member of Local 151. As Maclary went up and showed his pass, Robert Nash
said, "Sorry, you can't go in." Maclary stated, "Oh, you are kidding"; whereupon
Nash retorted, "No, I am not kidding." Maclary did not enter and went back to the
administration building across the street. About 10 minutes later, Maclary sought
to enter through the main gate but was told by one of the pickets stationed there,
"Sorry, Georgie, I won't let you in this way." Maclary went back again to the
administration building.
i. March 15-at main gate and main office building
About 11:05 a.m., Donald F. MacNaught, the Company's assistant superintendent
of drafting, accompanied by four associates who were department heads, went toward
the picket line at the main gate. As the group approached the picket line, Jimmy
Smith, picket captain of Local 5, called for the picket line to close rank. Other
strikers crossed the street and joined the picket line which then totaled about 50 to
75 pickets. McNaught identified himself to Smith and requested entrance for him-
self and the group to go through the main gate to the main office building. Smith
replied that they could not enter through the main gate and that they would have to
go to the main office building entrance. At that point Robert Nash, chief picket
captain of Local 151, who was standing about 2 feet to the left and rear of Mac-
Naught, spoke up and said, "No, you are not going into the main office building."
MacNaught then spoke to Nash and requested entrance to the main office building.
Nash replied, "You are not getting in." The management group thereupon returned
to the administration building.
About a half hour later, Richard Nash, president of Local 151, came to the ad-
ministration building and spoke to MacNaught in the lobby. Nash expressed regret
over the incident related in the preceding paragraph, indicated a willingness to get
the group in to the main office building, but stated that since the group had been
denied entrance by Local 5 be was concerned about Local 5 usurping his picket line
if he let the entire group of five through at one time. Nash stated that he did not
want to take the chance when it was not necessary and proposed to get two men in
with MacNaught and, when the two came out, he would get two more in. Mac-
Naught agreed to discuss this proposal with his people. About 10 minutes later,
MacNaught and his group approached the main office building. About 10 or 12
pickets were present. MacNaught told Richard Nash that he wanted to go into the
main office building with his entire group and that they all had to be there together
because they wanted to assemble some information for a meeting to be held the
following morning. Nash's reply indicated that he would have to get approval from
the other unions to let them all in at once; he also stated that a picket would have to
accompany each man into the building and that he needed additional time to con-
sider MacNaught's request. MacNaught thereupon went back to the administration
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
building. MacNaught returned about 20 minutes later and asked Richard Nash if he
had come to any decision about their entrance into the building. Nash stated that
he was sorry but that he could not grant them entrance into the building.4
About 11:30 a.m. that same day, Superintendent Warren B. Nott approached the
main office building where there was a picket line of about 18 pickets. He was
stopped by a group of pickets and asked if he had a pass. When he replied in the
negative, he was told that he could not get in through that entrance. As previously
noted, members of Local 151 were picketing at the main office building during that
period.
j. March 16-at the main office building
About 2:45 p.m. MacNaught returned to the main office building with four of his.
associates. About 10 to 15 men were in the picket line at the time. Among them
were Robert Nash, chief picket captain of Local 151, Hutchinson, recording secre-
tary of Local 151, and Parsons, a member of Local 151. MacNaught asked Nash if
he would honor their previous request for entrance into the main office building.
Nash replied that he would not. MacNaught then stated that Richard Nash had told
him the preceding day that two of them might be permitted into the building, and
asked, "Could two of us go in today?" Robert Nash replied, "No, only one." Whenk
MacNaught designated Paulson, Nash questioned Paulson's position as part of
management. MacNaught thereupon designated Tunburg. At that point Nash
stated he would like to have about 10 minutes to discuss it with other people.
The management group left the area and returned about 15 minutes later. Mac-
Naught asked Robert Nash what decision he had reached. Nash asked, "How long
do you want to go in?" MacNaught stated, "Well, until about 4:30." Nash then
said, "You can all go in, but 5 pickets are going in too. I am going to be one of
them." The management representatives thus entered the building after a picket had
been assigned to accompany each one. Except for Tunburg, the management group
left the building at 4:30 p.m., accompanied by their respective pickets. Tunburg
did not leave until 4:42 p.m.
k. March 17-at main office building and main gate
About 8:50 a.m., Art$ur H. Hewson, chief electrical engineer at the Quincy
yard, with five associates, approached the main office building where all of them had
offices. As the group approached the building, the picket line, consisting of about 35
pickets, suddenly increased in number, with Robert Nash standing in front of the
group. Hewson told Nash that the group had business to perform in the building
and desired to gain entrance. Nash replied, "You are not going in." Hewson in-
quired why they were not permitted to go in when others had been allowed to go in,
the preceding day. Nash stated that the reason was that those who had been per-
mitted to enter the previous day had not kept their word in that Tunburg did not
leave the building until 4:40 after MacNaught had promised that they would be out
by 4:30 p.m. Nash would not permit the group to enter, stating that that was his
"final" word.
Shortly thereafter, the same group, accompanied by Assistant Manager Jansen,
returned to the main office building and was again denied entrance by Robert Nash
for the same reason. Police Captain Weurth engaged in a conversation with Robert
Nash and Richard Nash, president of Local 151. Orcutt, vice president of Local 5,
kept asking members of the group if they really wanted to go in . Robert Nash then
joined in to ask the same questions. Jansen stated that they all wanted to get in and
that they had business inside. At that point, Richard Nash said, "Okay, open up,
let 'em in." The double picket line, which was in the formation of a chain, opened
up and the group proceeded in. Before the entire group had passed through, the line
* The findings in this paragraph are based on a synthesis of the testimony of MacNaught
and Richard Nash. MacNaught testified that when he was at the main office building,
Nash stated that he would have to get approval from the other unions before letting them
in. Nash testified that he did not recall making such a statement. He was then asked
whether he denied making that statement , and testified , "In those words , yes, I do."
However, in view of Nash's admitted fear that Local 5 would usurp his line if he per-
mitted the entire group to enter at once, MacNaught's refusal to accept Nash's counter-
proposal to permit the men to enter two at a time and MacNaught 's insistence upon the
entire group of five being permitted to enter together, and his testimony that he did not
make the statement "in those words," I believe and find that Nash made a statement-
which indicated that he would have to get approval from the other unions
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 421
closed up again and engulfed the men in the middle of the chain formation. After
considerable jostling and pushing and a threat by the police captain that he could
arrest the pickets for assault and battery, Richard Nash again yelled to "open up"
and "let 'em in." The line then opened again and the group entered the building.
About 9:30 a.m., Assistant Superintendent Gardner, accompanied by five manage-
ment representatives, went to the main gate entrance to the Quincy yard where their
usual places of employment were located. About 90 to 100 pickets were walking
around in a circle, completely blocking the entrance to the main gate. As the
management group approached, pickets from the other side of the street ran out and
joined the picket line; the pickets closed ranks and formed a human chain, blocking
all entrances from one side of the gate to the other. Gardner told Picket Captain
Smith of Local 5 that he and his group desired entrance. Smith stated that they
could not enter and that if they tried)to get in "somebody probably would get hurt."
When Gardner replied that they did not desire to force their way in but "wanted to
gain legal entrance to go in and do the job" they were required to do in there, Smith
stated that Gardner and his assistant foreman could go in "but the others could not."
Gardner then appealed to Police Captain Weurth for assistance. Captain Weurth
asked Smith if he would let the group through. Smith replied that he would not.
Captain Weurth then told Gardner that he could not gain entrance for the group
unless the picket captain ordered the line opened. At that point, Robert Kehoe and
Orcutt, president and vice president of Local 5, and Robert Nash, chief picket captain
of Local 151, approached the picket line. Gardner repeated his request, directing it
this time to Kehoe, who replied that "Smith is in charge here." Only Gardner and
his assistant foreman were then permitted to enter, and then only on condition that
they stay there no more than 2 hours.
About 10 a.m., Assistant Manager Jansen and a group of 5 management repre-
sentatives approached the main gate where about 75 pickets were circulating. The
pickets were walking two or three abreast, in a circular chain fashion. Jansen
identified the group to Picket Captain Smith and requested that he open up the line
to let them in. Smith refused. Jansen remonstrated that he understood one or two
people were allowed in earlier in the day and wanted to know why he would not let
this group in. Smith stated, "Well, we're not going to let anymore in today." Jansen
then requested assistance from Police Captain Weurth, who stated that he did not
have enough men to go through, to open up the line." Jansen then appealed to
Smith to let one or two men in . Smith thereupon permitted two members of the
group to go in, conditioning the stay of one of them to 2 or 3 hours. As the remain-
ing group left the area, Smith commented to Jansen , "You know we do have peace-
ful picketing here, all except when you people try to get through the line."
About an hour later, Jansen and another group of five management representatives
returned to the main gate to seek entrance to the yard. About 75 pickets were still
slowly rotating in front of the gate. Smith and Orcutt were there. Smith denied
Jansen's request for permission for the group to enter, stating that "no more can go
in today." Jansen appealed to a police sergeant to open up the line. The sergeant
replied that he did not have enough men to do it . The group then went back to the
administrative building.
1. March 18-at main gate and main office building
About 9:15 a.m., Jansen and a group of five management people approached the
main gate to seek entrance There were about 200 men in the picket line there. As
they were nearing the line, Vice President Orcutt of Local 5 came over and asked
Jansen why he was attempting to get into the yard in view of a meeting between
representatives of the Company and the Union called by the mayor of Quincy for
that morning. Jansen replied that he was not aware of the meeting but that in any
event the management people had a right to go into the yard. In response to
Jansen's request for entrance, Smith replied, "No, nobody gets in today." The
police sergeant was again unable to assist Jansen because he did not have enough
men to get them in. As the group was walking back to the administration building,
Smith caught up to them and said, "if you're going to try to get in here with the aid
of the police, there's going to be a riot."
About a half hour later, Jansen and a group of four management people from
the drafting department made another attempt to enter the main office building.
There were about 40 pickets on the line there at that time. Richard and Robert
Nash, who placed themselves between the management group and the picket line,
refused Jansen's request to open up the line for them to pass through. The police
sergeant again was unable to assist the group, at Jansen's request, because he did not
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have enough men to open up the line. The management group then attempted to
go around the line and to push their way through but were prevented from making
any headway. None of the group was permitted to enter.
in. March 23-at the main gate
On that afternoon, Jansen and about 19 management people were able to make
entry into the yard under the following circumstances: The picket line had increased
from 25 to 28 pickets on the previous 2 days to about 200 on the picket line. There
were also many more observers, both union and supervisory people, around The gate
and across the street. The management group of 19 people came out of the back
of the administration building and were accompanied by some of the union leaders
as they walked across East Howard Street, single file, with Police Captain Weurth.
Vice President Orcutt of Local 5 called through a megaphone to the mob, "Now,
quiet down, be quiet, this is a group of 19 top management people and that's all,
and this is the only group who will go in today, o let them through." About 75
policemen were standing nearby in the street. The only way for the management
group to pass was to go around the picket line, between it and the hedge, and they
"had to squeeze" their way through the pickets. As the group "squeezed" by, they
were continually being kicked in the shins and jabbed in the ribs with elbows.
Among the several thousand people in the immediate vicinity who were watching,
vere both union and management people.
2. The incident involving Goode
Glen D. Goode, an assistant superintendent of machinery, lived and worked in the
Quincy yard from the beginning of the strike. On February 29, he left, the yard
about 4.30 p.m., pursuant to a doctor's orders, by the main office building entrance,
went through the picket line being maintained there, crossed the street, and entered
the administration building. As he walked through the picket line, Parsons, a Local
151 member, hollered out twice, "Hey Goode, come back-I want to talk with
you." Parsons then spoke to Robert Nash, chief picket captain of Local 151, who
made a semicircular motion with his hands directed toward him, in the direction of
the main gate. Picket Captains Duffy and Smith, Shop Steward Caruso, and Carney,
all of Local 5, came up from the main gate and joined Robert Nash in the street.
These five men then ran up the driveway between the hospital and the administration
building.
Goode had gone into the administration building and proceeded down the steps
leading to the parking area opposite the street entrance. As he opened the door to
step out, Carney pointed his finger at him and asked, "Is that the one?" Smith
answered, "Yes, that's the . . . get him." When Goode heard that, he opened the
door and started back into the administration building. Caruso and Duffv grabbed
hold of Goode on the steps, one on either side of Goode, and while they were
holding him, Carney hit Goode in the eye and on the nose, breaking his glasses.
Smith and Nash were standing 4 or 5 feet away at the time. When Goode fell down,
the men disappeared; all five were observed leaving the administration building and
moving in the direction of the main gate. Robert Nash turned right and went over
to the picket line that was in front of the main office building. That evening Nash
told Rogers, a company chauffeur, that he hoped the Company would not try to
sneak any more men out of the yard the way they sneaked Goode out because if they
did, "a great many more heads may be punched in."
All five men were tried in a State court proceeding for assault and battery upon
Goode. Carney, Duffey, and Caruso were found guilty; Carney was sentenced to 3
months in the house of correction, and the other two were each fined $200. All
three filed appeals which were still pending at the time of the hearing in this
proceeding.
3. Concluding findings
No detailed discussion is required to conclude from the above-found facts, as I do,
that during the period from January 23, the beginning of the strike, through March
23, 1960, men in the Company's employ were barred from entering the main office
building and the Quincy yard, at each gate and entrance to the yard, by pickets
through the sheer force of massed numbers, as well as by physical force and threats
of violence. I also find that Goode was assaulted as an example of what would
happen if any other nonstrikers left the yard where they were living during the strike.
A mere reading of the numerous incidents , hereinabove detailed , compels these
findings . On many occasions the group seeking entrance to the yard was physically
forced back and pushed into the streets by the pickets , who did not hesitate to resort
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 423
to "jabbing" the men in the ribs and kicking them in the shins when believed nec-
essary to bar ingress. Police officers were powerless in their efforts to force entry
through the massed pickets. Picket captains threatened that if the men continued
to try to gain entrance to the yard, "somebody would probably get hurt," that they
would "get a punch in the nose," "that there's going to be a riot," and that if the
Company tried to sneak anymore men out of the yard, "there would be bloodshed"
and a "great many more heads may be punched in." The wholesale incidents of
misconduct, previously detailed, could not help but be known to other strikers and
nonstrikers, many of whom were present when they occurred. Under the circum-
stances, it was not necessary for those who may have desired to enter the yard
through the picket lines to test the picket line in each instance; they were just as
effectively barred as those who did in fact make an unsuccessful attempt to pass
through the picket lines. Nor were the men anytheless barred in those few in-
stances when they were permitted to enter only two at a time, or accompanied by
a picket, or for limited periods of time. For they were lawfully entitled to the free
and unrestricted access to and use of the Company's premises to perform their duties,
without the imposition of any limitations or conditions.
I conclude and find that all of the conduct described in section B, 2, supra, con-
stitutes restraint and coercion.
D. The legality of the conduct
Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act proscribes restraint or coercion only against "em-
ployees." Except for the conduct of Chief Picket Captain Robert Nash in prevent-
ing Maclary, a mail clerk and member of Local 90, from going into the main office
building on March 4, and in threatening employee Milton Rogers, a company
chauffeur, on February 29, that if the Company tried to sneak more men out of
the yard a "great many more heads may be punched in," and the conduct of Johnston,
treasurer of Local 90, in temporarily refusing to let employee Rogers enter the main
office building with the mail on February 27, the conduct hereinabove detailed was
directed against supervisory 5 or management personnel who do not fall within the
statutory definition of "employee." However, it is now well settled that restraint
and coercion directed against supervisors and managerial personnel under circum-
stances which became or were sure to become known to the Company's striking or
nonstriking employees constitutes restraint and coercion of employees in the exer-
cise of their statutory rights within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.6
This is the exact situation in the instant case. The picket line misconduct was
well publicized and widely known by both strikers and nonstrikers, both of whom
were observers in many instances. These widespread acts of misconduct, which
formed a continuing pattern of denying free ingress and egress at every entrance
gate and door to the Quincy yard, constituted a clear indication and warning to
both strikers and nonstrikers that they too would be treated in a similar manner if
they sought to exercise their rights to refrain from supporting the strike by attempt-
ing to cross the picket line to go to work. The same reasoning also applies to the
assault upon Goode, even if it be assumed that he was a supervisor. The assault
was widely publicized in the local and metropolitan newspapers, as was also the
trial of the five defendants in the State court proceeding.
Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I find that the misconduct, hereinabove
previously detailed, constituted the restraint and coercion of employees proscribed
in Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
E. Liability for the conduct proscribed in Section 8(b) (1) (A)
Restraint or coercion of employees in the exercise of their statutory rights consti-
tutes a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act where such conduct is legally
attributable to labor organizations or their agents. Each of the five Respondents
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The General Counsel con-
tends that the acts of restraint or coercion were committed by agents of the Re-
spondent Locals, that all five Respondents were engaged in a joint venture for the
purpose of conducting an effective strike for a common objective, and that therefore
all Respondents are jointly and severally liable for whatever unlawful acts were com-
mitted by any one of them.
51 am assuming, without deciding, that Goode is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act.
6 See, e g, International Woodworkers of America, et at (W T Smith Lumber Com-
pany), 116 NLRB 507, 508; Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Ohio Con-
solidated Telephone Company), 120 NLRB 684, 686
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. As to Locals 5, 90, and 151
I find, in accord with well-established principles,7 that the officers, stewards, and
officially designated picket captains, who, as the previously related facts show, took
an active part in the prosecution of the strike, are agents of their respective Locals
which are therefore legally responsible for the acts of restraint or coercion com-
mitted by or under the instigation 8 of these authorized agents. An examination
of the incidents described in section B, 2, supra, makes it apparent that acts of re-
straint and coercion were committed or instigated by agents of each Local, with
Local 5 being the chief offender. Thus, I find that Local 5 is responsible for the
acts of restraint and coercion which occurred on January 23, 25, and 26, on Febru-
ary 2, and on March 14, 15, 17, 18, and 23; that Local 151 is responsible for the
acts of restraint and coercion which occurred on January 25, on February 5 and 29,
and on March 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18; and that Local 90 is responsible for the act
,of restraint and coercion committed by Treasurer Johnston on January 27, when he
refused to permit employee Rogers to enter with the mail until dissuaded by Picket
Captain Smith of Local 5. I further find that, in view of Chief Picket Captain Nash's
participation in the events leading to and surrounding the assault upon Goode, both
Local 151 and Local 5 are responsible for the act of restraint and coercion flowing
from this assault. I therefore find that Local 5, Local 90, and Local 151 have each
violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
Moreover, the preponderance of the evidence supports the General Counsel's posi-
tion that all three Locals engaged in a joint venture, in pursuit of a common objec-
tive by joining forces to make the strike more effective. This is borne out primarily
by the following: 9
First of all, there was intermingled picketing by all three Locals. Thus, on Janu-
ary 24, Locals 5 and 90 were intermingled. On January 25, the first day that all
three Locals were on strike together, all three Locals picketed jointly in one continu-
ous line, with common picket signs bearing the name of all five Respondents on the
same sign. Thereafter, there were occurrences of intermingled picketing and visiting
on the lines throughout the strike.io
Locals 151 and 90, followed the acknowledged leadership of Local 5. On Janu-
ary 25, the first day that all three Locals engaged in picketing activity at the same
time, President Richard Nash of Local 151 appointed Chief Steward Robert Nash
as chief picket captain of Local 151 and instructed Robert Nash to make arrange-
ments with Picket Captain Smith of Local 5 for the assignment of a gate where
7 See, e g , International Woodworkers of America, et al . 116 NLRB 507, 523-524;
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, C 10. (Sunset Line and Twine
Company), 79 NLRB 1487, 1510-1511.
8 Where authorized union agents, by their misconduct, set an example for rank-and-file
pickets, thereby instigating the similar type of misconduct engaged in by such pickets,
the Union is equally liable for such latter misconduct which occurred even in the absence
of the authorized agents.
9 The factual findings are based on evidence and credited testimony which is undisputed.
10 The following are some examples : On January 26, Gould of Local 90 was in a picket
line made up mainly of Local 151 members. On several occasions in February, Shelley
and Johnston, vice president and treasurer of Local 90, respectively, were in the main
gate picket line with Local 5 pickets. On March 7, Picket Captain Smith of Local 5 was
picketing at the main office building with Chief Picket Captain Nash and Parsons of
Local 151. Among those in the picket line at the entrance to the main office building on
March 14 were Prior, Chief Picket Captain Nash and Parsons, all of Local 151, and
Picket Captain Smith of Local 5 On March 17, President Kehoe, Vice President Orcutt,
and Picket Captains Smith and Duffy, all of Local 5, were present at the main office build-
ing picket line when a management group was denied entrance by President Richard Nash
of Local 151. On that day, Picket Captain Nash of Local 151 was present at the main
gate picket line when a management group was denied entrance by Picket Captain Smith
of Local 5 On March 18, when a management representative was denied entrance to the
main office building, Shoo Steward Caruso, Picket Captain Smith, Vice President Orcutt,
and Carney, all of Local 5, and President Richard Nash, Chief Picket Captain Robert
Nash, and Yoerger, all of Local 151, were present. On March 21, Richard and Robert
Nash and Secretary Hutchinson, all of Local 151, Treasurer Johnston and Dan Clark, of
Local 90, and Duffy, Smith, and Carney of Local 5, were at the main gate picket line
while some of them were "yammering" at the nonstrikers leaving the yard at the end of
the day On March 22, Treasurer Johnston of Local 90, Carney and Duffy of Local 5,
and Chief Picket Captain Nash of Local 151, were in the main office building picket line
as the supervisory personnel were leaving their work for the day
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE, ETC., LOCALS 5 & 90 425
Local 151 could picket. As a result of such a conference between the two picket
captains , Local 151 thereafter picketed at the Howard Street gate and at the main
office building. On March 15, when MacNaught, a management representative,
sought permission from President Richard Nash for a management group to enter
the main office building, Nash indicated he would have to get clearance from the
other unions to permit the entire group to enter all at once, because of his concern
that Local 5 might usurp his picket line if he acceded to MacNaught's request. He
believed, however, that if he arranged to have only two men enter at one time, it
would not put him in a bad position with Local 5. On January 27, when Treasurer
Johnston of Local 90, stopped employee Rogers from entering the main office building
with the mail, Secretary Hutchinson of Local 151, who was in the picket line at the
time, went to the main gate and came back with Local 5 Picket Captain Smith.
Johnston then complied with Smith's instructions to permit Rogers to enter with the
mail. On February 2, when a management group was approaching the Howard
Street gate, Local 5 Picket Captain Smith ordered Local 90 and 151 pickets to leave
the line. On February 5, when Gilmartin, a local 151 picket, barred entrance to a
group of management representatives to the main office building, he complied with
the request of Picket Captain Duffy of Local 5 to permit the group to enter.
When deemed necessary, joint meetings were held by all three Locals. The first
joint meeting was held at the union hall of Local 5, on January 16, before the com-
mencement of the strike. Officers of all three Locals were present for the purpose
of discussing common problems. They agreed to the distribution of a "flyer" over
the names of the official boards of the three Locals. The "flyer" stated that at this
meeting the official boards of the three Locals passed a resolution that unless the
Company were to bargain in good faith at a forthcoming meeting, John J. Grogan,
the International president of IUMSWA, would call a strike at 12:01, January 25;
it also stated that a joint telegram had been sent to the Senators and Congressmen of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by the official boards of all three Locals, re-
questing an investigation of the Company. Another joint meeting, attended by offi-
cers and some picket captains of the three Locals, was held on March 23, at the
Quincy police station . This meeting was held with company representatives and
counsel to discuss management's complaint that employees were prevented from
entering the yard by mass picketing. After some discussion about the presence of
counsel of the respective parties, Company Repiesentative Mullin met and discussed
the situation with President Kehoe of Local 5, President Nash of Local 151, and
Treasurer Johnston of Local 90. During this discussion Kehoe suggested that a
meeting be called at union headquarters of all three Locals. Later that day Presi-
dents Kehoe and Nash told Mullin that the situation was such that they could not
do anything about it.
In addition to the common publications which were issued in the form of "flyers"
and telegrams, as previously mentioned, uniform passes were provided by the Locals
for the use of those whom they had agreed to pass through the picket lines. This
pass was in the form of a IUMSWA 1959 membership card, on the reverse side of
which appeared the name of "Jim Smith," the picket captain of Local 5. Although
the record shows that such a pass was not in general use, employee Maclary, a mail
clerk, always showed his pass when seeking entrance and Superintendent Nott was
refused admission to the main office building by Local 151 pickets because he did not
have a pass.
Upon consideration of the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, I am con-
vinced and find, in agreement with the General Counsel and the Charging Party, that
all three Locals engaged in a joint venture which rendered them all jointly and
severally liable for all unlawful conduct hereinabove found.il T therefore find that,
regardless of which Locals affirmatively engaged in the specific violations herein
found, Local 5, Local 90, and Local 151 have violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the
Act by all the conduct herein found to be proscribed by that section.
2. As to Internationals IUMSWA and AFTE 12
a. I UMSWA
IUMSWA was the certified bargaining representative for the units represented by
Locals 5 and 90, and International representatives participated in the negotiations for
u See, e.g., International Woodworkers of America, et at., 116 NLRB 507; International
Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, Inc, etc. (Chicago Calumet Steve
dorinq Co., Inc.), 125 NLRB 113
12 The factual findings in this section are based on evidence and credited testimony
which is not disputed.
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a new contract covering these units. The strike called by Locals 5 and 90 was
authorized 13 and ratified by the International. Robert Kehoe, president of Local 5,
was also a member of the International 's general executive board . Kehoe was in
the picket line on January 25, when Locals 5, 90, and 151 were intermingled. On
that occasion, when Manager Wakeman asked Kehoe for permission for him and
his associates to enter the main office building where they had business to perform,
Kehoe asked Wakeman, "Sam, will you sign a contract with us?" When Wakeman
replied that he could not sign a contract , Kehoe stated that Wakeman could get
in "but no one else."
International representatives visited the picket lines , consulted with officers of
Locals 5 and 90, and spoke to the strikers. Andrew A. Pettis, vice president of the
International, visited the picket line at the Howard Street gate on March 2. In a
"flyer" distributed on the picket lines on March 7, over the name of John J. Grogan,
president of the International, it was stated that on "March 2 and 3, your National
officers were in Quincy, visiting our Locals 5 and 90 . . . we not only consulted
with the Local's officers and visited at the Local's headquarters, but went out on the
picket line and spoke to our striking brothers and sisters. We found that the spirit
and determination of our striking brothers and sisters were at an all-time high, and
that in this area also the strike machinery was working extremely efficiently." In
"The Shipbuilder," the official organ of IUMSWA, it is reported in the March 1960
issue that:
Marching with the Quincy pickets . Grogan and Vice President Andrew
A. Pettis huddled with enthusiastic strikers grouped around fires and in shelters,
and took part in man-to-man talks to bring them up to date on developments
and to answer their numerous questions.
In an article appearing in "The Shipbuilder" of April 30, it is stated that:
. the indestructible pillars of IUMSWA picket lines and the idomitable [sic]
spirit of the eighteen thousand Bethlehem Steel Company strikers battling
against rapacious management who seek to serve their own selfish and base
ends continued militant and invincible.
And in a continuation of this article on another page, President Grogan is quoted
as saying that
I will urge our Local Unions whose members are on strike at your shipyards to
return to work immediately upon your taking the aforesaid actions... .
The International made arrangements with Blue Cross and Blue Shield to con-
tinue in effect all the benefits of the Company's program for striking employees who
were not on layoff status when the strike began. In addition, the International
sought to make arrangements with Blue Cross and Blue Shield for the postponement
of the payment of the premiums by the striking employees.
b. AFTE
AFFE authorized and ratified the strike called by its Local 151. International
President Ralph Stevens was present at the collective-bargaining negotiations held
on January 24, immediately preceding the calling of the strike by Local 151. At
that meeting, Stevens explained to the Company's representatives what his experiences
had been in other negotiations.
Stevens participated in the long continuous picket line on January 25, carrying a
sign which stated "On Strike, Local 151, AFL-CIO." He also visited the picket
line about a week or two before the hearing in this proceeding. Myles W. Holmes,
an International representative, was at the picket line on January 25 and on other
occasions thereafter. Other International representatives who visited the picket
line in March were Nutzell and Coughlin. During the course of the strike, Richard
Nash, president of Local 151, conferred with these International representatives.
During the hearing in this proceeding, International President Stevens told Mullin,
a company representative, that if he had any complaints about the picketing activities
of any of his Local Unions, Stevens would like to have Mullin bring it to his
attention.
Local 151 received financial assistance from the International; payments for gaso-
line and other expenses incurred were made to the members beginning about 8 weeks
after the commencement of the strike. In addition, moneys which originated from
18 See International's constitution, sections 1, 6, and 12(a) of article III, and section
18(a) of article IV.
INDUSTRIAL RAYON CORPORATION 427
other Internationals passed through AFTE which cleared the money down to
Richard Nash for Local 151.
Concluding Findings
It is significant that, although represented by able counsel throughout the hearing,
no witnesses were called for IUMSWA and AFTE. Upon consideration of the fore-
going and the entire record as a whole, I find that, whether on the theory of joint
venture, authorization, or ratification, Respondents IUMSWA and AFTE are equally
responsible for the violations of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act committed by their
affiliated Locals and their agents.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Company 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 com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act,
I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The cease-and-desist order
herein recommended will be limited to the Bethlehem Steel Company and its Quincy
yard, as the record does not disclose the likelihood of the commission of similar
or other unfair labor practices by Respondents elsewhere.14 On the contrary, al-
though Local 151 also conducted picketing at the Company's Hingham yard, about
5 miles from Quincy, there is no showing, claims, nor contention that any mis-
conduct occurred at that location.
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. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO
and its Locals Nos. 5 and 90, American Federation of Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO and its Local No. 151, are each labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The foregoing labor organizations have jointly and severally violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by committing through agents for whose conduct they are
responsible the acts of restraint and coercion hereinabove related which interfered
with the exercise of rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
14 See, e.g., N L R.B v. Local 476, United Assoe. of Journeymen a Appren. of Plumb-
ing & Pipefitting Ind, etc. (E Turgeon Constr. Co., Inc.), 280 F. 2d 441 (C A. 1) ;
.N.L.R B v Local 111, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc (Clemenzi Construction
Co.), 278 F. 2d 823 (C.A. 1) ; Rickel Bros , Inc., 128 NLRB 448.
Industrial Rayon Corporation and Gregory J. Cudzilo, Sr.
International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 600, AFL-
CIO and Gregory J. Cudzilo, Sr. Cases Nos. 8-OA-2027 and
8-CB-4920. February 17, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 21,1960, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
130 NLRB No. 53.