Queen City Valves, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1576 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that
all persons employed by the Employer as guards, and patrolmen at
waterfront installations, docks, piers, terminals, warehouses, and
aboard vessels, but excluding all others including office employees,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHAIRMAN IIERZOG, dissenting :
I cannot agree with my colleagues that the recognition clause of
the contract in question is ambiguous, and has been construed by the
parties to require membership in the Intervenor as a condition of em-
ployment. Therefore I would find the contract a bar to an election
during its term. It seems clear to me that the clause in question does
not, under any interpretation, make membership in the Intervenor a
condition of employment. Indeed, it does not even, as the majority
says, allow the Intervenor to interview candidates before they are
hired. It merely allows the Intervenor to object to persons hired if
for some reason they are not satisfactory to that labor organization.
Nothing in the contract requires or permits the Intervenor to object
to any employee because of his union or notuulion status. If the
parties are, as a matter of practice, requiring membership in the In-
tervenor as a condition of employment, that practice appears to me to
be entirely outside the contract. It could be more appropriately dealt
with under the unfair labor practice provisions of the Act where, in
an adversary proceeding, the legality of the contract could be more
fully litigated and more adequately judged.
QUEEN CITY VALVES, INC. and DISTRICT 34, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS . Case No. 9-CA-327 . April 19, 1951
Decision and Order
On January 25, 1951, Trial Examiner Bertram G. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
93 NLRB No. 264.
QUEEN CITY VALVES, INC. 1577
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications and additions
noted below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the conduct of the Re-
spondent, fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, was violative
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In so concluding, however, we do
not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Joseph, the Respondent's
secretary-treasurer, in his speech to the employees on May 18, 1950,
impliedly promised benefits "only in the event the employees re-
nounced the Union." The record, in our opinion, fails to support a
determination that such a condition was attached to the promises.
However, even absent that condition, it is clear, and we find, that these
promises, made shortly before the consent election of May 22, 1950,
and under the circumstances detailed in the Intermediate Report, were
calculated directly to affect the decision of the employees on the issue
of union representation, and were therefore unlawful .3
2. The General Counsel excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure
to particularize, in his recommended order and notice, the types of con-
duct found violative of Section 8 (a) (1). We find merit in the Gen-
eral Counsel's exception. In order more fully to effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act, we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist
from the particular conduct found unlawful herein, and any other
conduct interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and shall
direct the posting of notices by the Respondent to reflect this order.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[Members Houston , Murdock, and Styles]
2 The Trial Examiner inadvertently found that the business of the Respondent was
established in 1948 , rather than in 1945. We note this correction.
8 Cf. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company , 81 NLRB 557 , enf'd 179 F. 2d 323
(C. A. 8) ; Joy Silk Mills , Inc. v. N. L. R B , 185 F. 2d 732 (C A. D C.), enforcing as
modified 85 NLRB 1263 . We also do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that at
the time of all of its unlawful conduct , the Respondent was aware that a date had been
set for a consent election However, the Respondent was apprised of that date before
Joseph 's speech on May 18, 1950 , and it is clear that it was fully aware of the Union's
organizational campaign at all the times in question.
1578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hereby orders that the Respondent, Queen City Valves, Inc., Cincin-
nati, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees as to their union membership,
activities, or sympathies.
(b) Promising benefits to employees for the purpose of inducing
employees to vote against District 34, International Association of
Machinists, in any representation election, or to renounce their mem-
bership in, and activities on behalf of, that labor organization.
(c) Threatening to close its plant if the above-named labor organi-
zation, or any other labor organization, is chosen as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees.
(d) Instituting or encouraging the formation of an inside or shop
union.
(e) Causing or encouraging its employees to conduct polls among
themselves to determine their preference as to their exclusive bargain-
ing representative.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist District 34, International
Association of Machinists, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Cincinnati, Ohio, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto and marked Appendix A 4 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, after having
been duly signed by representatives of the Respondent, shall be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for a
period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
4 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."
QUEEN CITY VALVES, INC.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
1579
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their union mem-
bership, activities, or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to our employees for the purpose
of inducing them to vote against DISTRICT 34, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, in any representation election, or to
renounce their membership in, and activities on behalf of, that
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant if the above-named
labor organization or any other labor organization is chosen as
the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT institute or encourage the formation of an inside
or shop union.
WE WILL NOT cause or encourage our employees to conduct polls
among themselves to determine their preference as to their ex-
clusive bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self -organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist DISTRICT 34,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, 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 in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of the above-named union, or any
other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
QUEEN CITY VALVES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By -------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
1580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermediate Report
Lloyd R. Fraker, Esq, for the General Counsel.
Mr. D. J. Omer, Grand Lodge Representative, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the
Petitioner.
Robert G. McIntosh, Esq., of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by District 34, International Association of Machin-
ists, herein referred to as the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein referred to as the General Counsel, and the National
Labor Relations Board, herein referred to as the Board, by the Regional Director
of the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) issued a complaint against Queen City
Valves, Inc., herein referred to as the Respondent. Copies of the charge and of
the complaint were duly served on the Respondent. The complaint set forth
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein-
after called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges jurisdictional
facts, and also, that commencing on or about March 25, 1950, and at numerous
times thereafter, the Respondent, by its officers, agents, and employees, inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act by: (a) Interrogating said employees
as to their union membership and activities, as to their sympathies for or against
the Union and as to attendance at union meetings; (b) promising and granting
to said employees improved working conditions, increased wages, holiday and
vacation pay, for the purpose of inducing them to vote against the Union in the
representation election which was conducted by the Board on May 22, 1950,
and to renounce their union membership and activities ; (c) threatening reprisals
against said employees because of their union membership and activities, and
by telling thein that the Respondent could not deal with the Union and that the
plant would be closed if the Union came in; (d) instituting and fostering a
movement among said employees to form an inside union for the purpose of
inducing them to renounce their union membership and activities; and (e)
causing and encouraging employees to conduct a poll among said employees to
determine their preference between the Union and an inside union, permitting
such poll to be conducted on its time and property, surveying said poll and
interrogating said employees as to the outcome thereof.
The Respondent filed an answer in which it admitted the jurisdictional
allegations in the complaint but denied the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was scheluled and held on November 28 and
29, 1950, at Cincinnati, Ohio, before the undersigned Bertram G. Eadie, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the' Chief Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel and the Respondent were represented at the hearing. All parties par-
ticipated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. A motion was made by counsel for the Respondent for the dismissal
of the complaint at the close of General Counsel's case ; decision thereon was
reserved by the Trial Examiner and is now denied. During the hearing counsel
for the Respondent offered the Respondent's Exhibits 1 to 7 for identification in
evidence ; upon objection by General Counsel the ruling thereon was reserved
by the Trial Examiner. The objection urged by the General Counsel is now
overruled and said exhibits are marked in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibits
QUEEN CITY VALVES, INC. 1581
I to 7 respectively. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Respondent reserved
his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. Decision, which was re-
served upon the motion, is now denied. Briefs have been submitted on behalf
of the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINFSS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged in the business of manufac-
turing plumbing supplies, having its principal place of business at Cincinnati,
Ohio. Its annual purchases of raw materials and supplies are valued at a sum
in excess of $100,000, of which more than 15 percent is shipped to it from points
outside the State of Ohio. Its annual sales of finished products are in excess
of $150,000. approximately 70 percent of which is shipped to points outside of
the State of Ohio. The allegations of the complaint, pertinent to jurisdiction
of the Board, are admitted by the Respondent in its answer. At the hearing
the Respondent admitted that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act. The Trial Examiner finds that the Respondent is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
It. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District 34, International Association of Machinists, is a labor organization
which admits to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Sequence of events
The Respondent, a manufacturer of plumbing supplies, commenced business
in 1948, employing 30 employees. At the time of the hearing herein, it had ap-
proximately 100 on its payroll. An organizational campaign was commenced
by the Union on or about March 7, 1950, when a personal contact with several
of the employees was made. Handbilling of the plant was thereafter com-
menced by the Union on March 22, 1950. On April 12, 1950, a written demand
for recognition was made by the Union to the Respondent. A conference between
the Union and the Respondent followed shortly thereafter at which time a con-
sent election was agreed upon. The date set for the election by the Board
was May 22, 1950.
On or about April 14, 1950. Palmer McArthur, an employee, after consulting
with Aaron Joseph, the secretary-treasurer of the Respondent, and with his
consent, appointed a committee of six, including himself, to meet with the Re-
spondent and discuss various grievances of the employees. Such a meeting there-
after was held. Joseph started the conversation and wanted to know what the
main complaint of the employees was and why they wanted a union. He was
told among other things that the pay should be increased, working conditions
improved, and in one instance, asked why one of the committee members present
was always the first to be laid off.
The economic condition of the Company was discussed by William T. Mc-
Laughlin, the president, and Joseph, with members of the committee at the
meeting. The meeting lasted about 2 hours.
1582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
Concerning this meeting with the committee, Joseph was questioned andl
testified as follows :
A. . . . We had a round table discussion, and there was a lot of things
talked about, and naturally the union was brought up. So I will assume
I said "If you folks agree to join the union and your demands are too great,
we will have to close."
O 1 R i t t i
Q. At this meeting, did you tell this committee of employees you are going
to have a big lay-oft anyway?
A. We anticipated one.
s a s s s s
Q. You said you contemplated a big lay-off?
A. Yes.
! » O K # i O
A. I told them we were going to do everything possible as soon as business
warranted it, we would restore their vacations. We were continually trying
to better their working conditions. And I think that is the normal trend
today.
s * t s * s •
Q. Did you tell them you would try to give them paid holidays?
A. Yes.
Joseph, questioned further, testified concerning his talks with employees, as
follows :
Q. During the period after you first saw the union passing out handbills
to the employees, did you talk to practically all of the employees and ask
them what the union could do for them that you could not do?
A. No, I never talked to all the employees. I have about 15 or 20 people
there that I've always been friendly to.
Q. Confining it to the 15 or 20, did you talk to them at the time I indicated
in my question, and ask them what the union could do for them that you
could not do?
A. Perhaps I did, yes.
Q. Don't you know that you did?
A. I said perhaps I did.
Q. Well, don't you know you did?
A. I don't know if I said it to all 15 or 20, but to some of them, yes.
Following the committee meeting by several days, McArthur, with Joseph's
approval and consent, arranged to hold an election prior to the scheduled Board
election of the Respondent's employees to determine whether they wanted an
inside union or an outside union. The election was held on the Respondent's
time and property. Upon receipt of the results, Joseph directed the employees
to assemble and he made a speech to them. The meeting was held at 2: 30 p. m.
on May 18 and at its conclusion the employees were dismissed for the balance of
the day with full pay. Joseph's version of his speech to the employees was that
he would try to get the employees five paid holidays, increased wages when the
Respondent was able to do so, better working conditions, and that the Respon-
ent would try to restore vacations.
2. Credited testimony of the witnesses
a. Louis Young
Young, a witness called by the General Counsel, testified in substance that about
April 14, 1950, McArthur came to the machine where Young was working and.
QUEEN CITY VALVES, INC. 1583
said he was getting a group together to go in the office, and wanted Young to
go along. The others who went in the office were employees Meadows, Ballow,
Hines, and Willis. Joseph and McLaughlin were there. Joseph started the con-
versation by asking what the main gripe was and why the committee wanted a
union. The committee stated that they wanted more money and better working
conditions. Joseph discussed with them the working conditions, about being
poor, and that the Company was in the red and not making much money. He
asked them about the Union, why they wanted the Union, and he told them if
the Union got in he would not be able to meet the union demand. He said in the
event the Union got in, the Company would be able to operate only about 30 days,
and then it would have to close down. Young asked Joseph, "Bud, you mean
if the union gets in the company will only be able to operate about 30 days," and
he said, "Yes, that is right."
b. Charles Willis
Willis, a witness called for the General Counsel, testified in substance that
subsequent to the start of the organizational campaign, McArthur asked Willis
to go in the office as one of a committee which he was getting together to represent
the other workers. Ballow, Hines, Meadows, McArthur, Young, and Willis con-
stituted the committee. The committee was received by McLaughlin and Joseph.
Joseph asked the members what their main gripe was, why they wanted a union,
and what their reasons were for wanting it. Some wanted higher wages and one
of the committee members asked why he was always first to be laid off. Joseph
said, "he couldn't meet the demands the union would ask for." He said the
plant would have to close down in 30 days, and the employees would have to find
other jobs if that happened. The meeting lasted about 2 hours or until quitting
time.
Willis recalled the occasion of an election being conducted in the plant at a
meeting called by McArthur. At that meeting, McArthur said he thought the
employees should have a union of some kind, as it seemed that the Machinists
Union was a dead duck.
Willis was also present when Joseph made a speech to the assembled employees
on May 18, 1950. There was a notice in the shop stating that there would be a
meeting of all employees at 2: 30 and they were to stop work at 2 o'clock and get
ready for the meeting. Willis heard Joseph's speech, in which he said, "Whether
the union got in or not there would be vacations with pay and five paid holidays
and wage increases whenever possible." After the meeting Willis heard Young
ask Joseph "if the union got in if we wouldn't get vacations and holidays with
pay." Joseph did not answer him.
C. Erma Meadows
Meadows, a witness called by the General Counsel, testified in substance that
the Union started handing out their handbills sometime in February. Joseph
came to her table and asked how she felt about it. Meadows told him that she
signed a union card on March 23, 1950, sent it in, and therefore was a member of
the Union. There was a meeting among Joseph, McLaughlin, and a committee
of employees at which Committee Member Meadows was present. Joseph first
spoke to her about such a meeting several days in advance. He asked if they
could not get a group of people to come into the office and discuss why they
wanted the Union. Meadows told him she did not think that was her duty.
McArthur spoke to her about it the same afternoon, and she told McArthur that
she would not serve on the committee. McArthur got 4 other men and went into
the office. Joseph thereupon came to Meadows' table and again asked her to
1584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
come in to represent the 10 women in the machine shop. Meadows did not want
to attend the meeting ; but upon Joseph's insistence, consented to, rather than
have an argument. Joseph showed the committee a report on the financial posi-
tion of the Company. She couldn't tell whether it was or not. She did not
know those things. It was made clear to them that the Company was in no
position to pay higher wages and that was what the Union would no doubt want.
When Joseph was asked point blank what would happen if the Union came in,
he said, "The only thing he could do would be to close down the plant."
Meadows remembered having a conversation with Joseph on May 8, following a
union meeting that had been held on the preceding Friday night. The conver-
sation took place at her table in the shop. He asked her, "How our union meet-
ing went last Friday night?" and she told him "That he probably already knew."
He said, "He heard that there were only nine people there." And that was
right. Joseph discussed with her the question of a shop union. She told him
that she did not think it was her duty to try to talk to the other people about it ;
thereafter McArthur appointed a committee of which she was made a member.
The day McArthur told her the employees were going to get together at 12
o'clock, right after lunch, to take a vote on whether they preferred a shop union
or another union, the employees welcomed it as a chance to have an hour or so
off. McArthur was in charge of the meeting and made a speech in which he said,
"it was a common belief that the I. A M. could not get in, that we all believed they
didn't have enough cards for representation. . .. " A vote was taken ; "We had
little pieces of paper to write yes or no, for shop union or no union, and the vote
was for a shop union."
d. Palmer McArthur
McArthur, a witness called by Respondent, testified in substance that Joseph
called him into his office and a discussion was had about the formation of a
committee to represent the people in the plant. Pursuant to that conversation
he went through the plant and picked a committee of six. The committee met
with McLaughlin and Joseph in the office. The idea was that there would be a
grievance committee without a union. One of the purposes of the committee
was to discuss grievances of the employees generally.
Witnesses McArthur, Bischoff, Perkins, Ramsey, Hummel, Stagg, Knecht,
McLaughlin, and Joseph called by the Respondent, gave their respective versions
of Joseph's speech and surrounding circumstances of the May 18 meeting in
substance as follows :
Joseph addressed the gathering of employees at which there were from 80 to
100 employees present. As he addressed them he held in his hand a paper, from
which he was apparently reading. In the speech he made no definite promises
but did say he would try to get them: (a) Raises in pay; (b) five paid holidays
during the year; (c) vacations; and (d) better working conditions.
The employees were requested to vote at the Board election to be held on May
22, whether their vote was to be yes or no.
B. Conclusions reached on the facts
The Trial Examiner finds on substantial material evidence based on a pre-
ponderance thereof, and to a great extent on the testimony of the secretary-
treasurer of the Respondent, that it committed -unfair labor practices in the
conduct of, its business, in that it interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act by :
(a) Interrogating its employees as to their union membership and activities,
their sympathies for or against the Union, and their attendance at union meet-
ings;. (b) promising to its employees, if business conditions warrant, improved
QUEEN CITY VALVES, INC. 1585
working conditions, increased wages, holiday and vacation pay, for the purpose
of inducing them to vote against the Union in a representation election thereafter
to be conducted by the Board on May 22, 1950, and to renounce their union mem-
bership and activities; (c) threatening reprisals against the employees because
of their union membership and activities, by telling them that the Respondent
could not deal with the Union and that the plant would be closed if the Union
came in; (d) instituting and fostering a movement among its employees to form
an inside or shop union or a grievance committee for the purpose of inducing
them to renounce their union membership and activities; (e) causing and en-
couraging its employees to conduct a poll among themselves to determine their
preference between the Union and an inside or shop union, and permitting and
encouraging such poll to be conducted on its premises, and partly on its time,
during the progress of a union campaign then being carried on by the Union at
its plant to organize its employees for the purpose of collective bargaining.
The Respondent by such acts engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
It is uncontradicted that Joseph conferred with and encouraged McArthur
to appoint certain of the'personnel of a committee of employees to wait upon
the Respondent and present and discuss complaints of the employees. He also
conferred with and encouraged McArthur in holding a poll or electon to determine
the consensus of the Respondent's employees as to whether they wanted the
Union, or an inside or shop union, as their collective bargaining agent.
At all of the aforesaid times Joseph had full notice and knowledge that a
campaign for unionization of the Respondent's plant was in progress by the
Union, and that a date had been set for a consent election to be held under the
auspices of the Board.
It is uncontradicted that Joseph in his speech to the employees on May 18,
1950, promised that the Respondent would try to give the employees better
working conditions, Increased wages, etc. There is no evidence that Joseph
directly stated that this promise was conditioned upon renunciation of the
Union by the employees. However, considering all the circumstances and
particularly the date set for the election which was scheduled to be conducted
a few days after his speech, it is a reasonable and inescapable conclusion that
Joseph impliedly promised most if not all of the above benefits only in the
event the employees renounced the Union, and the Trial Examiner so finds'
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce in the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
1F. C Russell Company, 92 NLRB 206, 27 LRRM 1071 ; Standard- Coosa -Thatcher
Company, 85 NLRB 1358 ; Ames Spot Welder Co , Inc , 75 NLRB 352 ; Stocker Manufac-
turing Company, 86 NLRB 666; Minnesota Mining d Manufacturing Company, 81 NLRB
557; Eastman Cotton Mills, 90 NLRB 31, S W. Eians & Son, 81 NLRB 161; Rapp
Brothers Company, Inc, 90 NLRB 1513.
943 7 32-51-101
1586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The number and variety of unfair labor practices found above clearly in-
dicates that the Respondent has been, and now is, disposed to defeat concerted
activity and self-organization among its employees by any conceivable means,
and discloses an attitude on the part of the Respondent of fundamental hostility
to the purposes of the Act. This attitude and conduct also indicates the likeli-
hood that the Respondent may resort in the future to the similar or related
unfair practices proscribed by the Act The preventive purposes of the Act
will be thwarted unless the recommendation herein and the Board's order
thereon are coextensive with this threat The undersigned will, therefore,
recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infring-
ing upon the rights of the employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. District 34, International Association of Machinists, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section-2 (6) and (7) of t1te Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
FROST LUMBER INDUSTRIES , INC., OF TEXAS and CORNELIUS REED. Case
No. 1C-CA-217. April 19, 1951
Decision and Order
On January 22, 1951, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. No exceptions were filed by the Respondent to these
findings of unfair labor practices. However, the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report insofar as the Trial Exam-
iner found that the May 2, 1950, offer of employment to Reed by the
Respondent was an offer of employment substantially equivalent to
his former position with the Respondent. We agree with the Trial
Examiner's conclusion.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
93 NLRB No. 263.