Monarch Hardware & Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 2, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 775 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

MONARCH HARDWARE & MFG. COMPANY 775
Although Black on one occasion substituted for the night shift super-
intendent when the latter was on vacation, there is no evidence that he
has exercised supervisory authority on any other occasion. The iso-
lated instance of his serving in a supervisory post is not sufficient to
constitute Black a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. In
view of the foregoing, we find that Black is neither a supervisor nor a
technical employee. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit.
On the foregoing evidence and on the record as a whole, we find that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's For-
rest Mills plant, including truckdrivers, plant clerical employees, the
shipping clerk, and the laboratory clerk, but excluding all office cleri-
cal employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
D. J. Calvert & J. R. Calvert d/b/a Monarch Hardware & Mfg.
Company and Lodge 681, District 27 of the International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-CA-928922. Janu-
ary 2, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1963, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report.
Pursuant to the tprovisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Jenkins].
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 entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report and exceptions,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.'
1 The Respondents ' request for oral argument is hereby denied as , in our opinion, the
record and exceptions adequately present the positions of the parties.
145 NLRB No. 83.
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.2
'The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein, the following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondent, D. J Calvert & J. R. Calvert d/b/a Monarch Hardware & Mfg
Company, Its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall*
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, in which the charge was filed on March 26, 1963, and the com-
plaint was issued on May 10, 1963, involves allegations that the Respondents D. J.
Calvert & J. R. Calvert d/b/a Monarch Hardware & Mfg. Company, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.,
Sec. 151, et seq. On July 1 and 2, 1963, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt conducted
a hearing at La Grange, Kentucky, at which all parties were represented. Upon the
entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of panic exit devices at their
plant in La Grange, Kentucky. The Respondents annually receive materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside Kentucky, and ship finished products
of like value directly to points outside that State. There is no dispute, and I find,
that the Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNION
Lodge 681 , District 27 of the International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue
The issue is whether the Respondents refused to bargain collectively with the
Union during 1962 by declining to sign a collective-labor agreement that embodied
terms and conditions of employment which had been agreed to in negotiations.
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit and the Union's majority status
On January 18, 1962, following an election in Case No. 9-RC-4678, the Board
certified the Union as the exclusive representative of the production and maintenance
employees at the Respondents' plant, excluding all office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. There is no dispute,
and I find, that such unit is appropriate. With respect to whether the Union's ma-
jority status continued throughout 1962, and thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Respondents are in disagreement, and the issue is resolved below.
2. Events following the Union's certification
On February 1, 1962, the Union wrote to the Respondents and requested that
negotiations be commenced. On February 27, the first of eight meetings occurred.
D. J Calvert, one of the Respondents, advised Union Representative Robert P.
Schneider that he intended to employ someone to represent the Respondents in the
negotiations. Within a few days, Calvert retained William F. Gutwein, a labor re-
lations consultant. At that time, Gutwein was involved in income tax difficulties
MONARCH HARDWARE & MFG. COMPANY 777
with the Federal Government and, as will appear , those difficulties became a subject
of articles in the Kentucky Labor News, a newspaper published by the Kentucky
State AFL-CIO.
On March 28 the second meeting occurred. Gutwein represented the Respondents
who presented a proposed contract which was used thereafter as the basis of nego-
tiations. On March 30 the next meeting occurred. On April 14 an article in the
Kentucky Labor News reported that a jury had convicted Gutwein " on a little
matter involving Gutwein's failure to file income tax returns from [sic] 1957 and
1958." On April 18 the fourth bargaining session took place, and it was the last
one that Gutwein attended. On April 28, the Kentucky Labor News published an
article which strongly criticized Gutwein as a man who "handle[d] anti-union cam-
paigns" and which reported that Gutwein had "just been sentenced to SIX MONTHS
IN THE FEDERAL PENITENTIARY for income tax evasion."
On May 4, Gutwein wrote to Schneider, saying that he expected to "be away" for
2 to 6 months and asking that negotiations be suspended until his return . Schneider
rejected the request, in part because a suspension of 6 months would have allowed
little time for the completion of negotiations during the certification's expected life
of 1 year. The negotiations were resumed the next month with Calvert alone repre-
senting the Respondents, but in the meantime the labor press continued to publicize
Gutwein's plight. On May 19 the AFL-CIO News carried a brief account of the
comments which had appeared in the April 28 issue of the Kentucky Labor News,
and on June 2 the latter newspaper spoke gleefully of Gutwein's having commenced
a 6-months sentence in "the pokey." On June 16 the Kentucky Labor News carried
an article which referred to Gutwein's letter of May 4 to Schneider and which ridi-
culed Gutwein's suggestion to Schneider that the negotiations between the Union and
the Respondents be suspended during Gutwein's incarceration. The article was the
first of two in the labor press in which the Respondents were identified as employers
of Gutwein. Schneider testified without contradiction that, at the request of the
author of the article, he gave a copy of Gutwein's letter to the author but did not sug-
gest that it be the subject of an article.
On June 26 negotiations were resumed in the presence of a Federal mediator,
Charles E. Baumgardner, Jr. On July 6 and 17, additional sessions were held with
Baumgardner present, and substantial progress was made. On July 19 another labor
newspaper, The Machinist, published by the Union's parent body, carried an article
about Gutwein's incarceration and his request of Schneider that negotiations with the
Respondents be suspended until his release. Insofar as appears, Gutwein's plight
was not publicized further. On July 27 the final bargaining session was held. Baum-
gardner again was present. Calvert represented the Respondents. Schneider, Her-
bert Jones, the chief steward, and Charles Acree, the shop committeeman, were
present on behalf of the Union. Agreement was reached on a contract for the 18-
month period of August 1, 1962, to February 1, 1964, with wage increases to be
given to employees on the former date and again on February 1, 1963. Schneider
was to submit the agreement to employees for their approval and to reduce it to
writing.'
After the meeting ended on July 27, Calvert and Jones walked together to the
former's automobile. Jones said to Calvert: "I am getting out of this union. I do
not see where it has done anything." The relevance of the quoted statement to the
defense will be discussed below.
At times material there were 12 employees in the unit. On August 1, five of the
employees met at Jones' home where Schneider explained the agreement which had
been reached on July 27. The five employees unanimously approved it. Schneider
did not promptly reduce the agreement to writing, however, and there was a sub-
stantial delay in his sending a written document to Calvert for the latter's signature.
'The findings concerning the agreement of July 27 are based upon the testimony of
Calvert and witnesses for the General Counsel. It suffices to recite that Calvert testified
that he agreed to sign the written contract to be prepared by Schneider if "it was in
accord to the agreement" of July 27; that the contract was to be effective until Febru-
ary 1, 1964; that the Respondents granted a wage increase on August 1, 1962, although
a written contract had not been executed, because the Respondents "had made that
commitment to the employees, and we didn't want any piling up of any back wages" by
delaying the increase until execution of a written contract : and that the Respondents
gave another wage increase on February 1, 1963, although the written contract still had
not been executed, because on July 27, 1962, Calvert had agreed to give a second increase
on February 1, 1963.
7 7 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As reasons for the delay, Schneider testified credibly that he had to give attention
to other affairs of the Union, principally a strike at another business establishment
which was in progress from July until sometime in September, and that the burden
of the Union's affairs fell largely upon him while certain employees of the Union
received their vacations during August.
On August 31, Gutwein was paroled. He returned to his business as labor relations
consultant, but the record indicates that it perhaps was as late as November before he
resumed work for the Respondents. On October 5 Schneider mailed to Calvert six
copies of a written contract which he had prepared and signed on behalf of the
Union. A few days later, Schneider noticed that he had failed to include in the con-
tract a. provision concerning vacations for employees having 3 years' service, and on
October 8 he mailed to Calvert a provision to be included in the contract .2 On the
same day, Schneider telephoned Calvert to say that the vacation provision had been
omitted from the contract and was being forwarded. Calvert replied that he had
received the contract but that the demands of his business would prevent his
examining the document for some days. Upon an undisclosed date within the next
few weeks, Schneider again telephoned Calvert who said that he had not had time to
examine the contract. During the hearing, Calvert testified that he never examined
the contract to ascertain whether it reflects accurately the understanding of July 27,
1962. He testified also that Schneider's delay until early October in preparing the
contract was such that, by the time he received it, his "memory [of the July 27
meeting] was pretty much lost." 3
On November 8, 1962, Schneider wrote to Calvert, saying inter alia that Calvert
had had sufficient time to examine and sign the contract, that Schneider would correct
errors in it if Calvert should find any, and that Schneider would institute proceedings
before the Board if Calvert should delay further. On November 14 Calvert replied,
saying that the matter was "in the hands of" Gutwein.4 On November 19, Gutwein
wrote to Schneider, saying inter alia that he would be happy to meet with Schneider
in order "to go over the status of the negotiations . . On or about Novem-
ber 26, Gutwein and Schneider talked by telephone. Although, according to Calvert,
he had expressed to Gutwein a doubt that the Union represented the employees,
and he and Gutwein had discussed the question whether the Respondents could
seek another election, Gutwein did not discuss with Schneider the defense now offered
by the Respondents that they would not sign the agreement because of a good-faith
doubt that the Union represented a majority. Instead, Gutwein said to Schneider
that there were "some matters that would have to be concluded," and Schneider
replied that an agreement had been reached before a Federal mediator, that the fact
could be verified by a call from Gutwein to the mediator, that the agreement had
been reduced to writing, that Schneider did not care to negotiate again , and that
Schneider was interested only in receiving from the Respondents an executed con-
tract. He did not receive it.
3. Conclusions
The Respondents raise several defenses. In their brief they argue that on July 27
there had been only an agreement "in principle," that after the Respondents' receipt
of the written contract they "wished to resolve questionable and unsettled matters be-
tween the parties such as omission, etc.," but that they "had no chance to review
the text properly with the Union or raise questions of omission, such as effective date,
etc, because Schneider refused [Gutwein's] invitation for a meeting to review the
status of negotiations." This defense is manifestly without merit. It is true that the
2 Calvert testified that the Respondents are abiding by the understanding of July 27
concerning vacations.
9 With respect to the quoted testimony, the Respondents say in their brief that Calvert
testified "that due to the delay . . . his memory was not fresh or clear as to the details
of the settlement of" July 27.
4 Calvert testified that, upon receipt of the contract from Schneider in October, he did
not "particularly" intend to consult Gutwein about the document, and in an affidavit
which Calvert gave to the General Counsel on April 11, 1963, the following appears:
"My letter of November 14, 1962 was the first time I had informed Schneider that
Mr Gutwein must approve the contract " It will be recalled that Gutwein had not
attended the last four bargaining sessions, and Calvert testified that he orally brought
Gutwein "up to date on what had happened" during Gutwein's incarceration and that he
sent the contract to Gutwein in order that the latter could "check it" The testimony
that during November Calvert brought Gutwein "up to date" is to be contrasted with
Calvert's testimony mentioned above and in footnote 3 that a month earlier his memory
had become unclear.
MONARCH HARDWARE & MFG. COMPANY 779
contract as mailed to Calvert by Schneider did not include a provision governing
vacations, but this oversight was quickly remedied. It also is true that the contract
did not recite the effective date of August 1, 1962, which had been agreed upon, but
these facts will not support a conclusion that there were "questionable and unsettled
matters" to be resolved. Calvert, as a witness, was unable to point to any variance
between the understanding of July 27 and the contract which Schneider later sub-
mitted, and the record supports a finding that the contract is an accurate reduction
to writing of the understanding of July 27. Moreover, Calvert testified that the
negotiations of July 27 were "final" provided that the reduction to writing should be
accurate, and that on July 27 he had agreed to sign the contract if "it was in accord
to the agreement" of that day.5
The Respondents' principal defense is that Calvert entertained a good-faith doubt
that the Union possessed majority status. On the other hand, the General Counsel,
citing principally Ray Brooks v. N.L.R.B., 348 U.S. 96, points out that the Union
was certified during 1962 and that the Respondents refused to sign the contract dur-
ing the "certification year." According to the General Counsel, it is immaterial if
some employees changed their minds about union representation. The General
Counsel's position is sound. In N.L.R.B. v. Small Tube Products, Inc., - F. 2d -,
53 LRRM 2877 (C.A. 3; July 18, 1963), the court said, "There can be no doubt
since the Supreme Court's decision in Brooks . . . that when the Board certifies
a Union as majority representative, its status is immune from challenge for one year
' In N.L.R.B. v. Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation, - F. 2d
-, 53 LRRM 2841 (C.A. 5; July 26, 1963), the court, citing Brooks, said that "the
Company is not relieved of its duty to bargain with a Union within the certification
year merely because a majority of employees may have defected from the Union."
The applicable law alone disposes of the Respondents' principal defense, but it may
be added that the evidence will not support a finding that the Respondents entertained
a good-faith doubt that the Union lost its majority status. According to Calvert,
the doubt began to be formed when Jones told Calvert, after the negotiations on
July 27, as already recited, that Jones was "getting out of" the Union. Next, Calvert
testified that he heard rumors that the employees did not wish to be represented
by the Union, that "from time to time" unidentified employees informed him "pretty
much of what was going on," and that one rumor was that only a few employees had
attended the meeting on August 1 at which the agreement was ratified. Calvert testi-
fied also that he did not learn until the hearing that the number of employees at the
meeting was five.6 Next, according to the Respondents' brief, after July 27 the em-
ployees showed "very little interest" in the Union as indicated by the fact that after
that date no representative of the Union, including the steward and committeeman,
sought a meeting with Calvert. The record is clear, however, that the employees
had no individual grievances from July 27 to the date of the hearing. Next, the
Respondents argue that Schneider's delay until October 5 in mailing the contract to
Calvert was due, not to the reasons given by Schneider which are recited above, but
to a "loss of interest" by Schneider in the employees, which resulted in "an opportunity
for the employees to lose interest in the Union." The Respondents also argue that
Schneider lost interest in the employees because he knew that they had lost interest
in the Union, and, therefore, that Schneider delayed in sending the contract to
Calvert. I have credited Schneider's explanation for his delay in mailing the contract,
and the employees' alleged loss of interest in the Union, and vice versa, appear
to me to be mere surmise founded in the Respondents' desire to avoid signing the con-
tract. Finally, Calvert's affidavit recites that one employee, a union adherent, quit his
s The contract is composed of General Counsel's Exhibits Nos 3b and 4b, the latter
being the provision governing vacations. The reduction to writing was not inaccurate,
but it was incomplete because of the omission of the effective date That omission, obvi-
ously, was trivial. On another matter the Union anticipated that there would be an
attachment to the contract, and the Respondents did not protest to Schneider that there
had been an omission The contract provides that in the event of arbitration, the parties
to the contract shall, in a prescribed manner, select an arbitrator from among the school
superintendent and four clergymen 'in the La Grange area." The population of La Grange,
according to the 1960 census, is 2,168 Schneider's covering letter of October 5, when he
mailed General Counsel's Exhibit No 3b to Calvert. recited that Calvert had neglected to
"forward" the five names to Schneider, but that Calvert could list the names in a letter
for attachment to the contract.
In Calvert's affidavit of April 11, 1963, the following appears:
I have no knoweldge that the employees of Monarch ever approved of the pro-
posed agreement or did not approve it. No one ever told me one way or another.
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment a few days after the election in January; that thereafter Calvert's son
went to work in the unit but did not join the Union; that a second union adherent
resigned on November 7; and that still another employee who voted for the Union
in the election had failed to become a member . In summary, it is apparent from a
recitation of the evidence and the Respondents' contentions that Calvert had a good-
faith doubt that the Union lost its majority status.
The final defense involves the publicity, described above, which was given to
Gutwein's income tax difficulties. With respect to Gutwein's offense and sentence,
the brief which Gutwein filed for the Respondents recites, inter alia, that Gutwein
was indicted for a failure to timely file certain returns, that he was sentenced to
6 months' imprisonment, that he began serving his sentence on May 7, and that he
was paroled on August 31. With respect to the publicity in the labor press, the
brief argues that Schneider engaged in "a premeditated conspiracy" with the writer
of one of the articles "to put the Respondent[s] ... in a bad light" with customers
because of the Respondents' "connection" with Gutwein, that Schneider's "character
and motives were destructive and unlawful," that the articles were "malicious and
libelous of ... both the Company and Gutwein," and, therefore, that the Respond-
ents were justified in not signing the contract with the Union. This defense is un-
persuasive. Even if I were to assume arguendo that there may be circumstances
under which the disclosure by a labor organization or by the labor press of an
employer's "connection" with someone convicted of a Federal offense may justify
the employer's refusal to bargain with the labor organization, this case does not
present such circumstances. In my judgment, the fact here is that some time after
Calvert refused to sign the contract, he decided that the earlier publicity in the labor
press might furnish support for his refusal. Several factors dictate this conclusion.
Gutwein's tax difficulties were existent, if not also a matter of public knowledge,
when the Respondents employed him. During succeeding days, the difficulties were
publicized in the labor press and the daily press. If the Respondents were unaware
of the matter when they employed Gutwein, they soon became aware of it. The
fact of which the Respondents complain, however, is not that Gutwein's plight
was publicized, but that the publicity mentioned the Respondents. The mention
occurred after Schneider gave to a labor reporter a copy of the letter from Gutwein
to Schneider in which Gutwein had asked that the negotiations be suspended during
the period of his approaching incarceration. Until that time, according to Calvert.
he believed that Schneider had been bargaining in good faith, and, although he
resented the publicity concerning his company as an employer of Gutwein, because
it might have resulted in the loss of customers, he continued to bargain until an
agreement was reached on July 27.7 Too, he did not mention his resentment to
Schneider. Under these circumstances, this defense is not meritorious.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) by refusing to sign the contract.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondents set forth above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondents 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees at the Respondents ' plant, excluding
all office clerical employees , guards, professional employees , and supervisors as
'r There is no evidence that the Respondents' business decreased, remained stationary, or
increased after the publicity. Calvert testified that he had no means of determining
whether the "bad publicity" had any effect on the business
MONARCH HARDWARE & MFG. COMPANY 781
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
3. On January 18 , 1962 , the Union was, and at all times thereafter has been, the
exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
4. By failing and refusing to execute the written contract between the Respondents
and the Union, as agreed upon on July 27, 1962, the Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) and Section 2(6) and (7).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent,
D. J. Calvert & J. R. Calvert, d/b/a Monarch Hardware & Mfg. Company, their
officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Lodge 681, District 27 of the Inter-
national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said labor organization to negotiate for or
represent the employees in the appropriate unit as the exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with said labor organization as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit, and , if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) If requested by said labor organization , execute the contract upon which
agreement was reached on July 27, 1962, and which appears in the record in this
case as General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 3b and 4b.
(c) Post at their place of business in La Grange, Kentucky, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents'
representative , be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof , and be main-
tained by them for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees customarily are posted . Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of
this Intermediate Report , what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.9
8 If this Recommended Order should be adopted by the Board, the words "As Ordered
by" shall be substituted for "As Recommended by a Trial Examiner of " in the notice
In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a United States Court of
Appeals, the words "A Decree of a United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order of"
shall be inserted immediately following "As Ordered by."
8If this Recommended Order should be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be
modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , In writing , within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board,
we are posting this notice to inform our employees of rights guaranteed them in the
National Labor Relations Act:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Lodge 681, District 27 of
the International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the following bargaining unit:
All production and maintenance employees at our plant in La Grange,
excluding all office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, if requested by Lodge 681, execute the contract upon which we
reached agreement with Lodge 681 on July 27, 1962.
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of Lodge 681 to negotiate for or
represent the employees in the bargaining unit as the exclusive representative.
D. J. CALVERT & J. R. CALVERT D/B/A
MONARCH HARDWARE & MFG. COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
If the employees have any questions concerning this notice or whether the Em-
ployer is complying with its provisions , they may communicate with the Board's
Regional Office , Transit Building , Fourth and Vine Streets , Cincinnati , Ohio, Tele-
phone No . 381-1420.
Superior Wood Products , Inc. and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case
No. 18-RC-5536. January 2, 1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director on
June 14,1963, among the employees in the unit described below. After
the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 40 eligible voters, 40 cast votes, of
which 22 were for the Petitioner and 18 against. The Employer filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
After investigation, the Regional Director, on July 10, 1963, issued
and served upon the parties his report and recommendation on ob-
jections, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled and
that a certification of representative be issued. The Employer filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report and recommenda-
tion on objections.
On August 9, 1963, it appearing to the Board that the Employer's
objections raised issues that could best be resolved by a hearing, it was
ordered that a hearing be held before a Hearing Officer designated by
the Regional Director, with directions to "prepare and cause to be
served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credi-
bility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board
as to the disposition of the said issues." A duly scheduled hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Edwin H. Bennett on September 17,1963.
The Employer and the Petitioner appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues . The rul-
ings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
145 NLRB No. 80.