United Mine Workers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 436 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

III the Matter Of UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA; UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 7425; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, THE UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS ; UNITED MINE
WORKERS, TIIE UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, LOCAL 474 and
UNION SUPPLY COMPANY
Case No. 9-CB-07.-Decided June 14, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 4, 1949, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
-Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondents United Mine Workers of America and its Local 7425,
.hereinafter referred to respectively as UMW and Local 7425, had
,engaged and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices in viola-
:tion of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act 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. He
also found that Respondents United Construction Workers and its
Local 474, hereinafter referred to respectively as UCW and Local 474,
had not engaged in unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint to be
in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and recommended that the
complaint be dismissed as to them. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions,
modifications, and exceptions :1
1. The Trial Examiner found that the UMW and UMW Local 7425
violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) on January 28, 1949, by the assault
on employee Herron,2 and, on February 5, 1949, by the numerous acts
1 In his "conclusion," the Trial Examiner stated inadvertently that the complaint alleges
restraint and coercion by the Respondents on or about January 18, 1948. The correct date
is January 18, 1949.
2 In his findings with respect to this incident , the Trial Examiner incorrectly stated that
both Herron and Schoonover were hit. The record shows that only Herron was struck,
and we so find.
90 NLRB No. 38.
436
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 437
of violence and intimidation fully detailed in the Intermediate Report,
all of which were attributable to the UMW and Local 7425, or their
agents. In the absence of exceptions to these findings, we adopt them
without further comment.
2. The Trial Examiner also found that the speech by Manly Ed-
wards, UMW field representative, on January 28, 1949, in front of the
company store, was not coercive. We disagree.
In finding Edwards' speech to be ' protected, .the Trial Examiner
relied on the transcribed portion therof set forth in the Intermediate
Report. However, this portion admittedly comprised only about two-
thirds of Edwards' total remarks,3 and, according to the uncontra-
dicted testimony of employees Shirer and Carroll, Edwards stated,
in addition, that "they [UMW] intended to organize the store, that
wives and children of employees had better stay out of the way if
they didn't want to get hurt," and that "they didn't expect any inter-
ference from the police." These uncontradicted remarks imply a
clear threat to use force, if necessary, in the ensuing organizational
campaign. Accordingly, we find that by Edwards' remarks, the
Respondents UMW and Local 7425, further violated Section 8 (b)
(1) (A) of the Act 4
3. The Trial Examiner dismissed the complaint insofar as it per-
tained to Respondents UCW and Local 474, on the grounds that these
Respondents were not responsible for the unlawful acts of the UMW
and Local 7425, and that they had not otherwise violated Section 8
(b) (1) (A) of the Act. We cannot agree.
We are persuaded that the organizational campaign, during which
the previously mentioned unlawful acts were committed, was in the
nature of a joint venture undertaken by all the Respondents, thus
rendering both the UCW and Local 474 liable for the coercive activity.
As appears from the record, prior to January 1949, the UCW and
Local 474 alone had been conducting the membership campaign among
the Company's store employees. It. was to implement that member-
ship drive on behalf of UCW and its Local that the UMW and its
Local came to the scene on January 13, 1949. Significantly, the UCW
is an immediate affiliate of District 50, United Mine Workers, which,
in turn, is directly affiliated with the Respondent UMW.
Although, as detailed in the Intermediate Report, the UMW and
Local 7425 thereafter assumed the leadership in the organizational
campaign, the UCW and its Local were not content to remain as mere
passive recipients of benefits, but, instead, concurrently engaged in
8 The company stenographer admitted at the hearing that she was unable to record about
one-third of what Edwards said.
4 Cory Corporation, 84 NLRB. 972.
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
aggressive solicitation. For example, on January 14, 1949, pursuant
to an agreement with officials of Local 7425 at a meeting held on the
previous night, Local 474 actively picketed the Company's store and
solicited memberships. Again, on January 20, under the apparent
direction of 'UCW's Field Representative Perani and Local 474's
President Davis, members of Local 474 solicited employees at the en-
trances to the Company's store. And subsequently, on February 2,
Local 474's Vice-President McClure and Financial Secretary Car-
penter s called at the home of employee Pendelton and requested that
she sign a check-off card. When Pendelton refused to sign and in-
quired whether they ivere going to throw her in the creek, "they said,
`No, but you'd better watch out because there may be trouble later.' "
In view of the joint sponsorship of the organizational campaign,
particularly as demonstrated by the close affiliation and the active
participation in the campaign of all the Respondents, we find that the
Respondents, UCW and Local 474, were jointly and severally liable
for the unlawful acts of the UMW and Local 7425, and that they
thereby violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.6
We also conclude that the remark made by officials of Local 474 to
employee Pendelton, on February 2, to the effect that "there may be
trouble later" if she refused to become a member of the union, occur-
ring as it did after the violence of January 28, was reasonably calcu-
lated to coerce that employee in the exercise of her right to refrain
from union activities. We find that, by this remark, the Respondents
further violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.'
The Remedy
In addition to the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondents
UMW and Local 7425 violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act,
which we have adopted, we have found that the Respondents UCW
and Local 474 have also violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A). We shall,
therefore, order that the Respondents UCW and Local 474, like Re-
spondents UMW and Local 7425, cease and desist from these unfair
labor practices and take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
O The Trial Examiner incorrectly found that the two solicitors were Mrs. Reed Davis,
wife of the president of Local 474, and Mrs. Manly Edwards, wife of the UMW field
representative.
6 Cf. Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487; Smith Cabinet Manufacturing
Company, Inc., 81 NLRB 886 ; Cory Corporation, supra. '
Cf. Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, Inc., supra; Cory Corporation, supra.,
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
ORDER
439
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents United Mine
Workers of America; United Mine Workers of America, Local 7425;
United Mine Workers of America, The United Construction Workers;
United Mine Workers of America, The United Construction Workers,
Local 474; and their officers, representatives, and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from assaulting, attempting to assault, or
threatening with reprisals employees of Union Supply Company,
Lynch, Kentucky, who refuse to join and authorize check-off for
United Mine Workers of America, The United Construction Workers,
Local 474, and from in any other manner restraining and coercing
employees of the Company in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such ac-
tivities, as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized
by the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended :
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the business offices of the Re-
spondents in Lynch, Kentucky, and in all other places where such
notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached
hereto as Appendix A.8 Copies of said notice are to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, and shall, after being
duly signed by an official representative of each of said labor organ-
izations, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by them for a period of sixty (60) days there-
after.. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents, and each
of them, to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material;
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region signed
copies of the notice, attached hereto as Appendix A, for posting, the
I In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order ," the words , "A Decree.
of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing."
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company being willing, on the bulletin boards of the Company where
notices to employees are customarily posted. The notices shall be
posted on the Company's bulletin boards and maintained thereon
for a period of sixty (60) consecutive clays.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondents, and each of them, have taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER HOUSTON, dissenting in part:
While I agree with my colleagues that the UMW and Local 7425
engaged in coercive activity violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), I
disagree with their further finding that the UCW and Local 474
violated the Act.
The principal basis of the majority's determination with regard
to the UCW and its Local is that, in this membership campaign,
these organizations and the UMW and its Local were engaged in a
joint venture relationship. However, in my opinion, this conclusion
cannot be supported in view of the uncontroverted evidence that, from
the very inception of the membership drive on January 13, 1949, the
UMW and Local 7425 exercised sole charge of, and held themselves
out both to the Company and its employees as having exclusive control
over, the campaign.
The record clearly shows that at the January 13 meeting of UCW
Local 474, officials of UMW Local 7425 appeared and peremptorily
announced that they (UMW) had "orders from Washington" to or-
ganize the Company's store employees. Similarly, on January 18,
Local 7425 officials, in requesting permission to solicit membership,
told store manager Kirby that they had "taken over on orders from
Washington." This was repeated by UMW representative Edwards
when he stated, in his speech to the employees on January 28, that :
"This is the United Mine Workers and we intend to see that this
store is. completely organized . . . We have orders that this thing
is gonna be organized" (emphasis supplied). Moreover, on January
28 and February 5, the UMW and its Local alone committed the
numerous acts of intimidation and coercion directed against the store
employees.
Consequently, while the UCW and Local 474 may have engaged
in isolated instances of solicitation," the UMW and its Local were, in
9I do not join in the finding by the majority that the remark by officials of Local 474 to
employee Pendelton on February 2, to the effect that "there may be trouble later" if she
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 441
reality, the sole sponsors of the organizational campaign?° And,
although the Respondents are affiliated organizations, this factor, as
both the Board 11 and the courts 12 have frequently pointed out, cannot
serve as a basis upon which to predicate liability.
I would find, therefore, that the UMW and Local 7425 were alone
responsible for their own coercive conduct and that the complaint,
insofar as it pertains to the UCW and Local 474, should be dismissed.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA;
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 7425; UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, THE UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS; AND
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, THE UNITED CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS LOCAL 474, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF UNION SUPPLY.
COMPANY
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that :
WE WILL NOT assault, attempt to assault, or threaten with
reprisals the employees of the Union Supply Company at Lynch,
Kentucky, if they refuse to join United Mine Workers of America,
The United Construction Workers, Local 474; or in any other
manner restrain or coerce the Company's employees in the exer-
cise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such activities
as guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
failed to join the union , was coercive. In my opinion , this remark was too vague and
remote to be violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). Cf. Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc., supra, and Perry Norvell Company, 80 NLRB 225.
to See Perry Norvell Company , supra.
11 Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company, 87 NLRB 54. Cf. Sunset Line and Twine Company,
supra, at 1514.
11 United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U. S. 344; Coronado Coal Co. V. United
Mine Workers of America,.268 U. S. 295.
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized by the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
By ---------------------------------------
(Title of officer)
Dated --------------------
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 7425,
Labor Organization.
By'-------------------*--------------------------------
(Title of officer)
Dated --------------------•
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
THE UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS,
Labor Organization.
By -------------------------------------------
(Title of officer)
Dated --------------------
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
THE UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, LOCAL 474,
Labor Organization.
By ---------------------------------------------------
(Title of officer)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Alan A. Bruckner, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Arthur R. Murphy, Esq., of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the company.
W. R. Lay, Esq., of Pineville, Ky., for the Respondent Unions.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed on February 8, 1949, by Union Supply Company, a cor-
poration, herein called the Company, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel' and the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued his
complaint dated May 19, 1949, against United Mine Workers of America ;
United Mine Workers of America Local 7425, hereinafter referred to as UMW
and Local 7425, respectively ; United Mine Workers of America, United Con-
struction Workers, hereinafter referred to as UCW ; United Mine Workers of
America, United Construction Workers Local 474, hereinafter referred to as
Local 474; alleging that the Respondents, and each of them, had engaged in, and
were engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
1 This term includes counsel appearing on behalf of the General Counsel.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 443
of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
61 Stat. 136 , herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by
notice of hearing 'hnd a copy of the charge were duly served upon the Respondents,
and each of them, and upon the Company.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondents , and each of them, by their agents did , on and after January
18, 1949, restrain and coerce the employees of the Company in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act by :
A. Threatening company employees with acts of reprisals or force in order
to force them to sign dues check-off cards in favor of UCW Local 474; -
B. Preventing company employees from leaving the site of company operations
by force and threats and acts of violence or damage , and threats of violence
or damage to persons or property unless they signed dues check -off cards in
favor of Local 474;
C. Obstructing the exit to company operations ;
D. Threatening company employees with acts of violence and reprisal to force
them to join or assist respondent labor organizations.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on July 6 and 7, 1949, at Cumberland,
Kentucky , before the undersigned Trial Examiner , duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner . The General Counsel, the Respondents and the Company were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing . Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues was afforded all parties . At the conclusion of the case of the
General Counsel , the Respondents Local 474 and UCW moved to dismiss the
complaint as to them for lack of evidence . This motion was denied with leave
to renew at the conclusion of the Respondents ' case . Respondents thereupon
rested without presenting any evidence and renewed the aforementioned motion
which was then taken under advisement . Although oral argument at the con-
clusion of . the hearing was waived , briefs have been received from the General
Counsel, the Company , and the Respondents.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Union Supply Company, a Pennsylvania corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the United States Steel Corporation of New Jersey, operates
approximately 97 retail stores in Pennsylvania, Alabama, Kentucky, West
Virginia, and Utah.
The Union Supply Company operates a large central warehouse in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, and at other, cities in other States. Consumer goods consisting
of canned goods and the usual goods dealt in by department stores are purchased
in several States, and part of these goods are shipped directly to consumer stores
including the Union Supply Company store at Lynch, Kentucky.
Part of these goods are shipped to the warehouse at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
and to warehouses in other cities in other States, where they are stored and
reshipped on demand to individual stores, including the Union Supply Company
store at Lynch, Kentucky.
The Lynch, Kentucky, operations, consisting of a main department store and
two branch stores, a restaurant, and a gasoline service station, grosses annually
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a sum in excess of $2,000,000. Most of the goods having a wholesale value in
excess of a million dollars, are shipped by rail and truck to the operations at
Lynch, Kentucky, from points outside the State of Kentucky.
The undersigned finds that the Union Supply Company in its operations at
Lyneh, Kentucky, is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Mine Workers of America, United Construction Workers; and United
Mine Workers of America, United Construction Workers Local 474 are labor
organizations admitting employees of the Company to membership. United
Mine Workers of America and United Mine Workers of America, Local 7425 are
labor organizations.
United Mine Workers of America, United Construction Workers Local 474 is a
labor organization affiliated with United Mine Workers of America, United Con-
struction Workers which, in turn, is affiliated with United Mine Workers of
America through District 50 of said United Mine Workers of America.
United Mine Workers of America Local 7425 is a Local Union affiliated with
United Mine Workers of America through District 19 of United Mine Workers
of America.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference and restraint
1. The facts
In 1945, following a Board election, the Company recognized the UCW and
Local 474 as the exclusive bargaining agent for its store employees. Ever since
that time there has always been a contract in existence between the Company
and the UCW covering hours, wages, and working conditions. The last contract
is dated November 1, 1948, and remains in effect until October 31, 1949. This con-
tract authorized the check-off of dues of Union members upon the execution by
the employees of certain specified authorization forms. The contract contained
no union-security clause of any sort.
About the middle of January, 1049, a delegation from Local 7425 appeared at a
regular meeting of Local 474 and announced that they had orders from Wash-
ington or from John L. Lewis to organize the Union Supply Company's store at
Lynch and requested Local 474 to establish a picket line at the store the next
morning to solicit membership among the nonunion employees. Local 474 voted
to solicit memberships as requested.
On January 18, 1949, a group of Local 7425 officials including Ted Sturgill,
president, Granville Farmer, LeRoy Arms, Walter Mason, J. C. Coleman, and
James Trosper , committeemen , entered the store and began soliciting employees
to execute cards authorizing the Company to deduct initiation fees and dues
from their salaries and transmit that money to Local 474. Charles F. Kirby, store
manager, learning of the presence of the delegation, went to the group, informed
them that the Company's contract with Local 474 provided that no union activities
should occur on company time and requested the delegation from Local 7425 to
cease their campaign. Committeeman Farmer stated that it was their idea to
force all the employees to join the Union, and, when they got through, the em-
ployees would all join. Again Kirby reminded Farmer of the existing contract
provisions. Farmer stated that the contract meant "nothing" to them, that "we"
were taking over and were going to run the organizational campaign themselves.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 445
However, the delegation from Local 7425 soon ceased its activities and left the
store..
The following day Sturgill returned with this same committee from Local
7425 and requested a conference with Kirby. At this conference Sturgill apolo-
gized for the incident of the previous day and then explained that he and his
committee had instructions from John L. Lewis in Washington to carry on a cam-
paign to organize everyone working in and about the mines and, especially, the
employees of the Company's store. He requested permission to interview the
nonunion employees at their work. This Kirby refused, again citing the provi-
sions of the existing contract. Whereupon, Sturgill requested permission to.
station some women at the store entrances to solicit memberships, adding that
this would not be in the form of picketing to prevent ingress and egress to and
from the store. Sturgill assured Kirby that no existing laws would be broken.'
The following morning Perani, field representative of UCW, and Reed Davis,
president of Local 474, were seen talking in front of the store entrance. Two
members of Local 474 were stationed in front of each entrance to the building
and there solicited the employees to become members of the Union as they ap-
peared to go to work. There is no claim made by the General Counsel that this
was anything but legitimate solicitation. The testimony affirmatively shows
that the solicitation on this occasion was courteous, pleasant and without coercion
of any kind.
One evening about this time Mrs. Reed Davis, wife of the president of Local
474, and Airs. Manley Edwards, wife of the UMW field representative, solicited
a nonunion store employee at her home to join the Union. The employee refused
to sign and asked if they were going to throw her in the creek. The two women
answered that they were not but added that there might be "trouble" later.'
About this same time there was either testimony or it was stipulated that
husbands or fathers of various clerks in the store were handed UCW cards by
either UMW or Local 7425 representatives with the request that they have their
wives or daughters sign the same. One witness, Edna Ruth Arms, testified that
she signed the card under the belief that doing so would prevent harm coming to
her husband. Some of the clerks executed these cards and apparently some of
them did not. As there is no testimony of any threats of reprisals or of force
being made to the persons to whom these cards were given by the UMW or
Local 7425, the undersigned believes that this type of solicitation does not violate
Section 8 (b) (1) of the Act regardless of what the personal belief of the indi-
vidual whose signature is requested might be. A mere subjective fear of reprisal
does not amount to an objective threat of reprisal as that term is used in the
Act.
There were other instances in the record where rank and file miners would
come into the store and request a clerk to sign a card and, when the clerk refused,
the miner would remark that they would be back or that there might be trouble
in the future. The undersigned believes, and therefore finds, that this type of
solicitation is also legitimate under the phraseology of Section 8 (b) (1).
However, on January 28, about 4:30 p. in., a crowd began to gather in front
of the store. An automobile belonging to Obie (Preacher) Shoupe, a miner, with
a public address system. attached thereto, drove up and parked across the street
from the front entrance to the store. Manley Edwards, UMW field representa-
tive appointed by Abe Vales, president of UMW District 19, who, in turn, was
2 During the visits of January 18 and 19 to the store, no officials or members of Local 474
or UCw were present.
3 This solicitation appears to be well within the legitimate boundaries.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appointed president of District 19 by the International UMW, and practically all
of the above-named committeemen of Local 7425 were present and identified in
front of the store on this occasion. The only UCW representative present was
Joseph Perani, the field representative of UCW." While the store employees were
still at work, Edwards addressed them over the loudspeaker system as follows :
We'd like to sign up all you clerks in there who haven't as yet signed a
card. We hear that Mr. Kirby has told them to sit still for a couple days
and it would all blow over, but that's where he's wrong. This is the United
Mine Workers and we intend to see that this store is completely organized.
There are some boys and girls working here in this store who are riding
this good horse to death, and we are going to put a stop to it.
We had a clerk to come by a while ago and get by you men. We can't
have that. You could have stopped him and got him signed up.
We had a meeting in 1945 and the majority voted to get the Union in,
and a certain few have carried this thing on. They have paid dues and
gotten raises for those who are too scared to come out and sign with us
themselves. We have orders that this thing is gonna be organized. The
store managers can fight it if they want to, but it's gonna be organized if it
takes two years, but we don't think it will take two weeks.
In 1945 some store clerks were making 25 cents an hour, now the lowest
rate is 48 cents-70 cents and on up. Before they got the Union in they
were working-12 to 18 hours a day or whatever the boss told them to work.
There was no overtime paid to them and they only got one holiday, Xmas.
Now they get six paid holidays, a 71/2 hour day, and time and a half for all
overtime they work. Yet, those people in there that don't belong say there's
nothing to this Union. The people that are interested in this Union have
been in the majority all the time, and they are going to continue to stay in
the majority. This is the only store that belongs to the Company that
doesn't belong, and we don't intend to let this store go on. Those in there
today. that want to sign the card today willing can come out, those who
come out tonight and don't sign-the next time they will sign.
I hear that there was one girl who signed a card the other day and they
didn't let her come back the next day. I'd like to see this girl take up her
case. They'll either put her back to work or we'll close down the store and
Cumberland will get their trade. People don't have to, trade at this store.
If it hadn't been for a few weak kneed ones we'd have organized them all
the last time when we had the store closed.
I understand that there is some misunderstanding between some of you
fellas over there as to whether or not we're going to close down the mines
to organize this store, but we don't intend to do that. We intend for the
boys to stick together. We intend to organize but yet keep the mines still
running. Anyway you are getting 6 days a week while some of the others
are not getting 3 days. Don't worry about your mines closing down, but
we do intend to have these clerks in, and have been getting a few signed
since this drive started a little better than a week ago, and we're making
4 Manager Kirby "thought" that Billie F. Parker, Local 474 committeeman, was in the
crowd. He then testified that Parker was the "only" UCW official present. Subsequently,
however, he also identified Reed Davis and Joseph Perani as being in the crowd. Kirby
also testified that the automobile to which the public address system was attached belonged
to Billie F. Parker but subsequent, and more reliable testimony, showed that the car
belonged to Preacher Shoupe, a miner. As hereinafter discussed, some of Kirby's testimony
was evidently influenced by his excitement at the time. No other witness saw any of the
above-named UCW officials so the undersigned makes the finding above.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 447
progress. We had the majority when we won the election here and we
thought they would have guts enough to come in and sign anyway, but we
see that they are riding this thing on and on. You men belonging to the
United Mine Workers who have boys and girls working here are not getting
your heads together and deciding whether it will be a Union or a Half-
Union. We have told some of you to get these boys and girls to sign a card.
Some of you say that there's nothing can be done with them over this. All
I can say is that if you can't get these boys and girls in your own homes to
join, then you're poor heads of your houses. If they don't get these boys
and girls in, we'll try to see if we can't get them out. These boys and
girls should join the United Construction Workers, which is affiliated with
the United Mine Workers. John L. Lewis signed it up and it's his organiza-
tion too, only smaller ; but it can be made just as strong an organization
as the United Mine Workers. They don't realize where their raises are
coming from. When they get a raise they run up and shake hands with
the boss and thank him for it. The only way John L. Lewis gets raises
for the miners is by their backing so with the Construction Workers.
Those clerks will be coming out in a few minutes and we'd like you boys
to talk to them and get them to sign. If they don't sign, then talk to them
some more. You have some men that work in that store that have not
signed cards. When they come out, ask them to sign one. If they don't
sign, ask them again. Then if they don't sign, just keep on talking to them
just any way you wish or want to talk to them. If those clerks don't sign,
we'll throw a picket line around the store, and no man will try to walk
through a picket line. We have a right to ask anyone to sign up.
These people that have been driving their automobiles up to the door so
that the clerks could just run out and jump in the cars without anyone
saying anything to them, might just as well move them out of the way from
now on. All we want is to talk to them and ask them to sign a card.
The other day some of our boys went in to talk to that man who works
in the grocery department with his chin hanging down over the counter.
Just as soon as they left he went running up to tell Mr. Kirby that those
men were jumping on him. Mr. Kirby came down and talked to the boys,
and just because they came in the Drug Store door and went out the front
door, he told that he run them off. Now I've never seen a Union man yet
that would run. He might back up, but he'll always be back. We're going
to continue to come back until we get every clerk in there.
I heard that some of the Department Managers said that they. haven't
gotten any rest or sleep since this drive started, and they'll be glad when it
is over. All I can say is that there will be a lot of weight lost from loss of
sleep before this thing is over. You fellas remember the fights you had
to put up to get the U. Al. W. A. in, well we'll have to do the same. If these
people get in this organization they won't want to give it up. They think it's
all right to get out but not put in. Share and share alike. I say if they're
going to ride they should buy a ticket.
The representative has been here every day since this drive started, and
he'll continue to be up. here for as long as he can stay.
We want you clerks to come on in.
The store manager ordered one of his secretaries to report the speech and,
especially, the important parts thereof. The undersigned accepts this transcript
of the speech as being accurate, although the stenographer testified that she
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
believed that she missed about one-third of the speech. However, that part of
the speech which is recorded is accurate.
One witness, Manager Kirby, testified that Edwards stated during this address
that the clerks "would eventually be reached (for solicitation) if it took tearing
up of cars to do it, turning them over," and stated further "if it took bloodshed
to do it, that would be carried out." Although this evidence was not denied at
the hearing as the Respondents, rested without presenting testimony, no other
witness heard.. any such remarks. It is completely out of character with the
remainder of the speech as transcribed. In view of this lack of corroboration and
in view of the fact that the secretary, under her instructions, would not have
missed recording these remarks if made, as well as the fact that the alleged
remarks are completely out of tenor with the rest of the speech, the undersigned
believes that Manager Kirby's excitement has colored his memory of the events
and, therefore, rejects the testimony of Manager Kirby as to these particular
remarks.
As the store employees left work that evening, they were met by a number of
men lined up along side of the doors with what appeared to be UCW check-off
cards and who requested the various employees as they appeared to sign the
cards. The crowd on the sidewalks and across the street was variously estimated
at from 50 to 100 persons with approximately 30 men lined up around the store
doors. With the exception of the committeemen of Local 7425 and Perani of
UCW, the remainder of the persons present remained unidentified. While the
employees had to walk a zig zag path to avoid persons standing on the sidewalk,
there is no showing that any attempt was made to stop egress from the store.
As employee Darnell Ball left the store by the front entrance that evening,
lie refused a card presented to him by Perani and continued up the sidewalk
where Granville Farmer took hold of his arm while asking him to sign a card.
Ball refused to sign and continued to walk to his automobile with Farmer follow-
ing and expounding upon the merits of unionization. Ball got into his tan Nash
automobile and, as he drove down the street, Edwards said over the loudspeaker:
"That fellow in the brown Nash there, he does not want to talk about the Union.
Someone will come up to him and he will be glad to talk to the Union."
As employee Carroll and his wife proceeded up the street, Committeeman
Lockhard asked if he would sign a card which Carroll refused to do. Then
Lockhard said, "You better take one while it's free." Carroll replied, "No, I will
wait and buy one."'
However, as employees William Herron and Quentin Schoonover approached
their automobiles parked at a distance from the store in order to drive home,
three or four men rushed over and asked them to sign cards. They refused
to do so and started to open the car door. One of the solicitors pushed the
door shut and held it shut, saying that they were not going to leave that night
until they had signed a card and that they could either quit their employment
or sign a card. One of these men with a card introduced himself as Buster
Shoupe, a member of the UMW. Quite a crowd gathered while the solicitors
urged the men to sign and the men continued to refuse. One of the solicitors
became restless and hit Herron in the face. Another solicitor struck Schoonover
with his fist. Herron and Schoonover both executed.cards promptly thereafter
and were allowed to get into their car and drive off. There can. be no doubt
I hat these employees were coerced into signing check-off cards.
This type of solicitation seems perfectly legal under the Act.
UNITED MINE.- WORKERS OF AMERICA 449.
On February 1, Division Manager McCorpin and Store Manager Kirby, con-
ferred with Reed Davis, president of Local 474, during which McCorpin stressed
that the Company would hold UCW and Local 474 responsible for any further
intimidation of the Company's employees. Davis answered that, "They", re-
ferring to UMW and Local 7425, had orders from Washington or from John L.
Lewis to organize the store, that lie would guarantee the activities of UCW
and Local 474, that UMW and Local 7425. had "taken over" the campaign and
that, as UMW was more powerful than his organization, he could not guarantee
their activities as he had no control over them. McCorpin then stated that he
had information that UCW had solicited assistance in the organizing drive from
UMW. This Davis denied. Davis left after stating that he would do all in his
power to prevent violence.
During the following week everything remained quiet and peaceful around
the store until about 4: 30 p. in. on February 5, when another crowd, estimated
again as from 25 to 100 persons, gathered around the front of the store. Manley-
Edwards,-Ted Sturgill, and the other committeemen of Local 7425 were all seen
and identified in the crowd. As had happened on January 28, about 25 or 30.
of these men lined up along side the doorway and in groups on the sidewalk
in front of the store waiting the departure of the employees. No UCW officials.
or members were identified at this time.
On this afternoon Lovell Hogg, then grievance committeeman of Local 474,.
left the building as usual by the back door about 3 minutes to 5 on his way home.
He was met there by Buster Shoupe and Committeemen Arms and Mason, who.
told him "There's some men up front that want to see you." In front of the
store Hogg was met by Edwards who instructed him: "Show this man the
people when they come out, that are out of the Union." As the employees came
out of the front door of the store, Hogg did as ordered and pointed out to the
man standing next to him Darnell Ball, Rumiller Burrell and Fred Mitchell as
employees who did not belong to the Union and then started on his way home.
After Hogg had pointed out these nonunion employees, three or four of the
unidentified men standing around in front of the store would catch hold of the
individual mentioned by the arms, hold him, and offer him a card with the
request that he sign it. While some of these unidentified men were holding
Ball, Edwards came by and was heard to say : "That's the way, boys, make
him sign up or he won't leave." Others heard him complimenting the men on
not letting the nonunion employees "escape."
When these unidentified men approached Burrell after he had been identified
by Hogg, with the request that. he sign, Burrell signed the card and walked away
unmolested.
When Ball was identified. three men grabbed him by the arms and held him
while a fourth man requested him to sign the card, which Ball refused to do.
Assistant Store Manager Farmer appeared behind Ball, told the men to leave
the boy alone but was told by an unidentified solicitor to keep out of the matter
and tend to his own business. After Ball's refusal to sign, he was hit in the face
by one of these unidentified men. That blow started a rough and tumble melee,
in which Farmer was struck with a fist, an open knife was brought into play and
a pistol thrust at the chest of the Chief Clerk Carter. All this took place in the
very entrance to the store. Ball was knocked down by the blow and when he
looked around, he saw an opening in the crowd and dashed off to his brother's
car which was standing a little way clown the street. Just as lie got into the
automobile, a shot was fired.
90,%847-51-vol. a0-3D
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As for Fred Mitchell, he was walking up the street when Hogg pointed him out,
whereupon he was seized by three or four unidentified men, asked to sign a card
.and, when he refused, was roughly carried back bodily to the entrance to the
stone where he was again told to sign a card. On the way back to th', store
entrance these men bent Mitchell backwards over a fence. When a department
manager objected to this type of treatment he received a blow from someone's
fist as a reminder to tend to his own business.
As Mitchell was thus returned to the front entrance to the store, a revolver
shot rang out. From that time on the excitement centered upon a man later iden-
tified as Pennington. Pennington had arrived at the scene in the same automobile
with the unidentified individuals who were holding Ball. Pennington was the
man who fired the shot. His activities up to this time are shrouded in mystery.
When the excitement was over, a policeman had been shot to death and Penning-
ton had been wounded. This episode ended the solicitation for the afternoon.
Except for Hogg, no official or member of Local 474 or UCW was identified at
this scene.
The record contains no evidence of further solicitation by any of the Respond-
ents.
2. Conclusions
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for "a labor
organization or its agents" to "restrain or coerce" the employees in the exercise
of their right to refrain from forming, joining or assisting labor organizations.
The complaint alleged that the Respondents, and each of them, by their agents,
since on or about January 18, 1948, restrained and coerced the employees by:
A. Threatening Company employees with acts of reprisal or force in order to
force them to sign dues check-off cards in favor of UCW Local ;
B. Preventing Company employees from leaving the site of Company operations
by force and threats and acts of violence or damage, and threats of violence or
damage to persons or property unless they sign dues check-off cards in favor of
UCW Local ;
C. Obstructing the exits to Company operations;
D. Threatening Company employees with acts of violence and reprisal to force
them to join or assist Respondent Labor Organizations.
The first thing to be determined here, eliminating for the moment the question
of agency, is whether the activities above found amount to "coercion and
restraint" as those terms are used in the Act.
It is too clear for any argument and, indeed, the point is not even mentioned
in the Respondents' brief that the acts of physical force and violence practiced
upon the employees of the Company by persons unknown attempting to force the
employees to execute check-off cards in favor of Local 474, of depriving the em-
ployees of their freedom of motion by physical force, of putting employees in fear
by the show of physical force and of deadly weapons in order to compel the
employee to join Local 474 as was done in the instant case in the episodes involv-
ing Darnell Ball, William Herron, Quentin Schoonover, and Fred Mitchell, as
well as in the general rough and tunable melee into which the solicitation de-
generated amounted to "coercion and restraint" within the meaning of those
words as used in the Act. Such actions were actionable under the criminal law
where the wronged individual, no doubt, had a more speedy and adequate remedy
than he has here. Certainly this type of criminal and tortious conduct is the very
type of activity intended to be banned by Section 8 (b) (1) (A).
UNITED MINE, WORKERS OF AMERICA 451
However, the undersigned finds nothing in the speech of Manley Edwards
-which qualified it under the terms "coercion and restraint ." The speech promised
the employees that the UMW would be persistent in its efforts to talk them into
membership in the Union . A labor organization has the right to solieft as often
.and as persistently as it cares to do so long as it does not violate the rights of
.the individual and of the public. There is nothing in the speech indicating any
intent to violate these rights. Nothing in the Act prohibits persistency. The
undersigned , therefore , finds this talk to have been protected under the free-
:speech provisions of the Act.
The General Counsel introduced , through oral testimony and by stipulation,
-evidence that certain of the clerks had been solicited for membership by their
UMW husbands and fathers who, in turn , had been requested by UMW officials
to solicit their relatives who were clerks in the store and that some of these
employees had executed cards for fear of reprisals by the UMW against their
husbands and fathers in the event that they should refuse to join the Union.
Apparently this evidence was produced as proof of coercion . However, "fear of
reprisal" is different than " threat of reprisal ," the former being purely subjective
while the latter is objective . In neither the oral evidence presented nor in the
stipulations is there any proof of the objective threat required by the Act. The
Act does not purport to deal with subjective fear nor would it be feasible to do
so. The evidence thus presented is, therefore , no proof of any violation of the Act.
The motion of UCW and Local 474 to dismiss the complaint as to them raises
the only important issue in this case. This motion brings up the question of
responsibility of a labor organization for acts of coercion and restraint committed
by persons who, in large part, remained unidentified in the record.
Counsel did not make a similar motion on behalf of UMW or Local 7425 nor
would there have been any merit in such a motion if made. Even though the
solicitors who used . force and coercion were largely unidentified individuals, it
is clear from the public and private announcements made by responsible officials
of UMW and Local 7425 and the presence of, the active participation in, and the
direction and supervision of events by, these same responsible officers of both
UMW and Local 7425 that these unidentified solicitors , while engaged in the
solicitation campaign and in the very illegal acts themselves , were, in fact, the
agents of both the above -mentioned labor organizations and acting under their
orders , directions and supervision . Manley Edwards on behalf of UMW, expressly
ratified the use of physical force in the coercion of the employees by these
solicitors while the responsible officers of Local 7425 actively participated in the
proscribed acts. The undersigned , therefore , finds that UMW and Local 7425
were the principals of the unidentified solicitors and responsible for the illegal
acts committed by these individual solicitors as found above.
The evidence on the question as to the responsibility of UCW and Local 474 for
these same acts differs considerably . Admittedly at the request of officials of
Local 7425 , Local 474 voted to, and did, place pickets around the store entrances
one January morning to solicit memberships from the company employees. The
evidence proved affirmatively , however, that there was no violation of the Act
on this occasion. This is the extent of the active participation in the solicitation
authorized by Local 474 or UCW.
On January 2S, Perani , International UCW Representative , was present in the
group of men in front of the store entrance as the employees left the store and
asked one employee to sign a card . When the employee refused , that ended the
participation of Perani so far as the evidence showed. The solicitation that day,
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as on February 5, was under the direction and supervision of UMW and Local
7425. Perani was not present at, within sight of, nor shown to have participated,
ratified or even known of, so far as the evidence shows, the illegal Herron-
Schoonover episode of that day. That. is the extent of the active participation of
UCW in the events under scrutiny here.
On February 5, Lovell Hogg, grievance committeeman of Local 474, acting upon
the orders of Local 7425 and UMW, brought to him by three committeemen,
pointed out three nonunion clerks who were subjected thereafter to violence by
the solicitors. In this instance, however, Hogg was acting in his individual, and
not in his representative, capacity because Local 474 never authorized or ratified
his participation therein. Indeed his own testimony shows that he was on his
way home after work when intercepted by three committeemen from Local 7425
and directed to Manley Edwards who, in turn, ordered him to point out the non-
union clerks. This direction was enforced by the presence of three UMW com-
mitteemen. Under these circumstances the fact that Hogg happened also to be a
grievance committeeman of Local 474 appears purely coincidental and insuffi-
cient to involve UCW or Local 474 in the events of that date. The presence of
the three UMW committeemen indicates also that Hogg had little, if any, indi-
vidual freedom of choice as to his participation. The above three incidents
constitute the full extent of the actual visible participation in the solicitation
campaign at the store by Local 474 or UCW as shown by the evidence in the
instant case.
In addition to the above, on February 1, Local 474, speaking for both itself and
UCW, expressly disclaimed any responsibility for what had, or might thereafter,
occur upon the basis, confirmed a few days earlier by both Local 7425 and UMW
to the Company, that UMW and Local 7425 had "taken over" the campaign and,
further, that while Local 474 and UCW would guarantee the acts of those organ-
izations, they, being weaker organizations than UMW, could not guarantee the
actions of the other Respondents. Furthermore, Local 474 and UCW denied to
Company officials that they had solicited assistance in the organizing campaign
from UMW or Local 7425. There is no evidence to the contrary in this record.
Thus neither UCW nor Local 474 participated in, authorized, or requested the
assistance of UMW or Local 7425 in the organizing campaign. Neither UCW nor
Local 474 participated in, authorized, or directed the solicitation of memberships
on either January 28, or on February 5, 1949. The evidence proved the truth
of the assertion that UMW and Local 7425 had "taken over" the campaign, nor
were UCW or Local 474 responsible for the continuation of that campaign after
the date of the first picket line placed around the store in early January.
The General Counsel and the Company both argued that both PCW and Local
474 must be held responsible by reason of their affiliation with UMW through
District 50. However, the Coronado Coal cases' are authority for the proposition
that the mere affiliation of two labor organizations is insufficient legally to hold
one organization for the activities of the other affiliated organization. The Board
recognized this line of authority in its Sunset Line and Twine decision.'
The General Counsel and the Company also argued that the campaign was a
joint and several venture entered into by all four of the labor organizations but
the evidence is to the contrary showing that the initiative for the campaign came
from the UMW and Local 7425 and was joint only on the occasion of the original
picket line around the store. The evidence further shows that Local 474 and
259 U. S. 344; 268 U . S. 295.
7 79 NLRB 1487.
UNITED MINEF WORKERS OF AME'RIC'A 453
UCW affirmatively disclaimed any joint participation in the campaign to the
Company. There is no evidence to the contrary.
The General Counsel and the Company also appeared to argue that, as UMW
and Local 7425 were organizing the employees apparently for and on behalf of
Local 474 and UCW, these latter Respondents are therefore liable and responsible
for the illegal acts under some sort of a third party beneficiary theory in reverse.
Obviously Local 474 and UCW must have known of the campaign but there is a
complete dearth of proof that either of these Respondents authorized or acquiesced
in the campaign or in the method of solicitation adopted under the direction and
supervision of Local 7425 and UMW, except for the one occasion, above men-
tioned, on which Local 474 placed pickets around the store at the request of
UMW and Local 7425. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that Local
474 or UCW accepted or received any of the benefits of the campaign. While
there is evidence that three clerks executed check-off cards in favor of Local
474, there is no showing that these cards were ever received by Local 474 or
UCW or that the Company,ever deducted and transmitted the dues for these
three individuals to Local 474 or UCW or either. This theory therefore must fail.
The Company also argues that, unless the cease and desist order is issued
against all four Respondents, "the charging party would be without effective
relief." In view of the evidence presented here, this argument is not only
factually untrue but also legally unsound. The evidence shows that all solicita-
tion done by UCW and Local 474 was courteous and nonviolative of the Act.
A cease and desist order against UMW and Local 7425 therefore would appear
to effect a complete remedy. The legal argument is equally unsound because,
before a cease and desist order can be issued against a labor organization under
the Act, the agency of the unidentified individuals for whose acts that labor
organization is to be held responsible, must be established by legal proof and
not by surmise, conjecture or suspicion. In the instant case the legal proof of
the fact that these unidentified solicitors were agents of UCW or Local 474 is
not in the record presented to the undersigned.
While admitting to some substantial doubts as to the correctness of the
following ruling when viewed in the light of the suspected, but unproved,
actualities of the situation, the undersigned is of the opinion that there is no
legal proof in this record upon which a cease and desist order can be issued
against UCW and Local 474 for the reason that there is a failure to prove that
the individuals committing the illegal acts complained of were the agents
of these labor organizations. The undersigned will, therefore, recommend that
the complaint be dismissed as to UCW and Local 474.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The activities of the Respondents UMW and Local 7425 set forth in Section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company, de-
scribed in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondents, UMW and Local 7425, have engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the
Act. Although the record does not indicate that the violence continued after
February 5, 1949, nevertheless there is a possibility that similar acts may be
454 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
committed in the future by these Respondents. In view of the nature of the,
violence found to have been committed by these Respondents, the undersigned is
of the opinion that in order to prevent the recurrence of similar unlawful con-
duct by these Respondents in the future a cease and desist order designed to
prevent such recurrence should be issued. In order, therefore, to make effective,
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair
labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and
obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned
recommends that the Respondents UMW and Local 7425 cease and desist from
in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1. United Mine Workers of America; United Mine Workers of America,
Local 7425; United Mine Workers of America, United Construction Workers;.
United Mine Workers of America, United Construction Workers Local 474 are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act..
2. Union Supply Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By the assaults and batteries upon employees, by the display and use of
physical force and violence, by depriving the employees of their freedom of
movement through the use of physical force and violence, by the threat of the
use of such physical force and violence, by the display thereof and by the
display of deadly weapons and by other acts of violence, United Mine Workers•
of America and United Mine Workers of America, Local 7425, and their agents
and officers, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. United Mine Workers of America, United Construction Workers ; and
United Mine Workers of America, United Construction Workers Local 474
have not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act..
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the com-
plaint against United Mine Workers of America, United Construction Workers
and United Mine Workers of America, United Construction Workers Local 474 be
dismissed.
Upon the basis of the aforegoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends further that
United Mine Workers of America and United Mine Workers of America, Local
7425, their officers and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Restraining and coercing employees of the Union Supply Company,
Lynch, Kentucky, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, to refrain from self-organization, to refrain from joining and assisting
United Mine Workers of America, United Construction Workers Local 474
or any other labor organization, or to refrain from forming, joining, or assisting
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 455
labor organizations, bargaining-collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and engaging in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action :
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the business offices of United Mine Workers
of America and United Mine Workers of America, Local 7425 in Lynch, Ken-
tucky, where such notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the
notice attached hereto as Appendix A. Copies of said notice, are to be furnished
by the Regional Director of the Ninth Region, and shall, after being duly signed
by official representatives of each of said labor organizations be posted by the
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by them for a
period of sixty (60) days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondents, and each of them, to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced,.
or. covered by any other material;
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region signed copies of the,
notice, attached hereto as Appendix A, for posting, the Company being willing, on
the bulletin board of Union Supply Company, Lynch, Kentucky, where notices to
employees are customarily posted. The notice shall be posted on the Company's
bulletin board and maintained thereon for a period of sixty (60) consecutive.
days;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing within ten.
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the Respond-
ents, and each of them, have taken to comply herewith.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date,
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections)- as he
relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ;
and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a
brief in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Immedi-
ately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing
the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements
of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the
record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeo-
graphed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers
filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As
further provided in said Section 203.46 should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board.
In the, event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 4th day of November 1949.
THOMAS S. WILSON,
Trial Examiner.
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A-
NOTICE
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that :
WE, United Mine Workers of America and United Mine Workers of Amer-
ica Local 7425, and each of us, WILL NOT assault, attempt to assault, use
physical force or violence, put in fear by force or threats of force or threaten
the employees of the Union Supply Company at Lynch, Kentucky, in order
to coerce and restrain the said employees into executing dues check-off or
membership cards for United Mine Workers of America, United Construction
Workers Local 474; or engage in picketing or soliciting the execution of such
cards in such manner as to bar employees from leaving the store ; or in any
other manner restrain or coerce the Company's employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such
activities as guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
By -------------------------------------------------
(Title of officer)
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 7425,
Labor Organization.
By -------------------------------------------------
(Title of officer)