Royal Palm Ice Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1295 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter Of ROYAL PALM ICE COMPANY and TRANSPORT WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 257, CIO
Case No. 10-CA-827.-Decided January 15,1951
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 29, 1950, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his In-
termediate 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 Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has -reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
with the corrections and additions noted below.2
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act .8
I Pursuant to the . provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Labor Management Relations Act,
the Board has delegated . its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
' Like the Trial Examiner , we find no merit in Respondent 's contention that the com-
plaint in this case was based upon a charge filed more than 6 months after -the date of
the,commission of the alleged unfair labor practices . Of the original and two amended
charges filed , only the last was filed after the 6 months ' limitation period had expired.
The allegations in this second amended charge were substantially the same as those in the
original charge. It is the date of the original charge, not that of subsequent amended
charges, which delimits the 6 months' period specified in Section 10 (b) of the Act.
Cathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157; Kansas Milling Co . v. N. L. R. B., 185 F. 2d 413
(C. A. 10, November 9, 1950).
Respondent also raises the question of the Union 's compliance with the requirements
of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The Trial Examiner correctly held that this
is a matter for administrative determination and not litigable by the parties. Porto Rico
Container Corporation , 89 NLRB 1570 . We are administratively advised that Local 257,
the Transport Workers Union of America, and the CIO were all in compliance when the
Board's' complaint was issued in this case . Thus all requirements of Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h ) of the Act were fulfilled . N. L. R. B. v. Whittenburg, 165 F. 2d 102 (C. A. 5) ;
West Texas Utilities Co. v. N. L. R. B., 184 F. 2d 233 (C. A. D. C., July 10, 1950).
'Royal Palm Ice Company, 82 NLRB 879 and 81 NLRB . 858; Baron's Incorporated, 91
NLRB No. 190; The Borden Company, Southern Division, 91 NLRB 628.
The Trial Examiner found,,,that Respondent 's New Smyrna, West Lake Wales, and
92 NLRB No. 196. 1295
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that by interrogating and
polling its employees regarding their union activities , by threatening
them with dismissal and other economic reprisals, by preparing a peti-
tion for withdrawal from the Union and inducing its employees to sign
that petition, Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act .4
3. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respondent discharged
W. H. Rose because of his leadership in the attempted unionization of
Respondent's West Palm Beach plant. The principal events pointing,
to this conclusion are well set forth by the Trial Examiner. They
need not be fully reiterated here.
It will suffice to point out that Rose was the unquestioned leader of
the organization effort of July 1949. When Respondent learned of
his role, it called him in and reproached him. Then, 3 days after the
Union's defeat in a Board-conducted election, it discharged him. At
the time of the discharge, Plant Manager L. G. Midgett remarked
(according to Midgett's own testimony) :
Rose, I have been noticing you around from the time I have
been here, and from your.actions and attitude around here, I
don't think you are satisfied with your job, and I think the best
thing for you to do is look for other employment.
To escape from the strong inference of discrimination reasonably to
be drawn from this language and the other circumstances related;
Respondent now makes six different charges against Rose, contending
that these were the real reasons for his discharge. First, it says that
Rose wrongfully overstayed his vacation period. Yet District Man-
ager Browne himself testified that this was not the reason for Rose's
dismissal.
-. Respondent next contends that Rose was only a temporary worker.
Yet District Manager Browne admitted that he had never told Rose
that the job was temporary. Rose worked at it for almost 2 years;
Wildwood plants were "exclusively " engaged in icing railroad cars and that this activity
consumed "approximately 50 percent of (Respondent ' s) total production of ice." The
'record shows, and we find , that those three plants used substantially all of their output
for icing freight cars and that this activity consumed from 40 to 45 percent of Respondent's
total ice production .' The difference , however, is immaterial to the jurisdictional issue
presented.
4 Standard - Coosa -Thatcher Company , 85 NLRB 1358 ; N. L. R. B . v. Kopman -Woracek
&hoe 'Mfg. Company, 158 F . 2d 103 , 105 (C. A . 8) ; N. L. R. B. v. Vail Manufacturing Co.,
158 F . 2d 664, 665 (C. A. 7 ), cert . den. 331 U . S. 835; F. C. Russell Co., 92 NLRB 206.
The Trial Examiner found, among other things, that employee Symonett , following his
initial conference with District Manager Browne , "agreed to desert the Union and advise
other employees to withdraw their membership also ," that "Mr . Browne agreed to prepare
a petition to be signed by the employees ," and that ' Browne himself testified that he par-
ticipated in "the preparation of the withdrawal petition."
. We do not find any support in the record for these particular findings , but this does not
alter our agreement with the Trial Examiner 's general findings and conclusions on this
aspect of the case. The fact that Browne did cause the petition to be prepared was ad-
mitted by Respondent 's own witness , Lehman.
ROYAL PALM ICE COMPANY 1297
and after his dismissal the duties which he had performed were not
eliminated.
The third reason assigned by Respondent for its treatment of Rose
is that he made trouble among the employees, quarreling with them
when they checked ice in and out. The record is devoid of any sub-
stantial evidence to support such a charge. Respondent's own wit-
nesses testified that they personally never had had any real trouble
with Rose and that they had never heard him engage in any vigorous
arguments with others. The situation was well summarized by Re-
spondent's witness, Lehman, who testified : "That's the only trouble he
was causing me, asking about a union all the time."
As a further ground for ridding itself of Rose, Respondent contends
that there were ice shortages while Rose was on the job, but not while
he was on vacation. This amounts to asserting that Rose permitted
the Company's route drivers to load and take away more ice than he
charged them for on the slips which he transmitted to the office. The
speciousness of this reason is apparent from the fact that Respondent
kept no exact record of the amount of ice which is turned over to the
platform men for issuance to drivers. Nor did Respondent keep any
record of the ice loss attributable to melting.
It is next contended by Respondent that it discharged Rose because,
in a conversation with employee Lehman, Rose allegedly referred to
Plant Manager Midgett by an uncomplimentary epithet, supporting
that epithet by charging that Midgett went around telling everything
he saw and heard. Sometime before the 14th of July, Lehman went
to Midgett and told him this story as to what Rose had said about
him. It does not appear that Midgett was much impressed by Leh-
man's tale telling. Midgett did not then either mention the matter
to Rose or discharge him for the alleged offensive remark. At that
time, Rose's union activities were not yet known to either Midgett or
District Manager Browne.
A month and a half later, when Rose's organizational activities were
well known to Respondent and he was being discharged, Midgett made
reference to Lehman's old accusation. When Rose denied it (as he
did again on the witness stand), Midgett might have been expected to
confront Rose with Lehman in an effort to sift the truth of the accu-
sation. Instead, he continued with the discharge of Rose as originally
planned.5
5 The Trial Examiner 's finding that Rose "was never given an opportunity to refute
that prejudiced information" is not correct. What the Trial Examiner probably intended
to say was that Rose was not given an opportunity to deny the story before the time when
Respondent made tip its mind to discharge him.
The Examiner seems erroneously to have found that both the alleged name-calling and
its reporting to Midgett took place in mid-August , just before Rose 's return from vaca-
tion. But if they occurred at all, we find that they occurred in early July , sometime
before the 14th.
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, Respondent .says that it discharged Rose because of its
belief that he was responsible for alleged shortages in the cash fund
of the register through which he made sales of ice to cash customers.'
Respondent's cash register was checked out only once each day. Thus
the same register was used by Rose, by the other platform man, Wright,
and by whatever night engineer happened to be on duty-all without
any segregating of check-outs. Moreover, Manager Midgett, District
Manager Browne, and Cashier Helen Diamond also had access to the
register fund at all times.
In an effort to fix responsibility on Rose, Respondent introduced
testimony by Cashier Diamond to the effect that daily cash register
shortages amounted to from $1 to $5 while Rose was at work, that the
shortages stopped when Rose went on vacation, but that they resumed
when he returned to work. However, she admitted that the cash
register had been running the very same shortages for 8 months before
Rose's dismissal, and that Respondent had never kept any written
record of them until after Rose's union activities became known.
The testimony of the witnesses relied on by Respondent to prove the
erratic behavior of the register fund is unconvincing.s Moreover,
Midgett made no mention whatever of any cash shortages when he
notified Rose of his dismissal. We do not believe that Respondent's
discharge of Rose was motivated by its dissatisfaction with the way in
which he handled the cash register fund.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respondent's dismissal of
Rose was discriminatorily motivated and that Respondent thereby vio-
lated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
"Diamond testified that Browne called Rose to his office four or six times and talked
to him about the shortages . But she then admitted that she could not hear what the two
men were talking about because the door to Browne's office was closed . She also testified
that, when Rose was there , they had "quite a few shortages every day . . The
register was checked out only once a day ; hence there could have been but one shortage
in any one day. Respondent 's witness , Baker, who filled Rose 's place on the platform
while the latter was on vacation , testified that during Rose's absence the cash register
always showed cash over . But he then contradicted this by testifying that , while he was
working in Rose's place , Mr. Browne came down one day with a long list of shortages to
show him . Baker was so disturbed at the seriousness of the shortages , he said, that he
asked permission to get the register key and check the register every day before beginning
his work. Baker also testified that, when Rose was working , the register was always $1
to $6 short. Then he admitted that before Rose's vacation he had never checked out the
register at any time when Rose was on duty , and that he was not sure that he had ever
done so afterwards either.
ROYAL PALM ICE COMPANY 1299
orders that Respondent, Royal Palm Ice Company, West Palm
Beach, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Transport Workers Union of
America, Local 257, CIO, or in any other labor organization, by dis-
charging any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating
against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment;
(b) Interrogating and polling its employees regarding their union
activities, threatening them with dismissal or other economic reprisals
for such activities, helping to prepare forms evidencing their with-
drawal from Transport Workers Union of America, Local 257, CIO,
or any other labor organization, and inducing them to sign such forms;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Transport Workers Union of
America, Local 257, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or
all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be of
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following action which the Board finds will effectuate
the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to W. H. Rose immediate and full reinstatement to his
former, or to a substantially equivalent, position, without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole W. H. Rose in the manner provided in the Trial
Examiner's Intermediate Report under the heading "The Remedy,"
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against him;
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the right
of reinstatement under the terms of this Order;
(d) Post at its plant' at West Palm Beach, Florida, copies of
the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A.7 Copies of
I In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order ," the words , "A Decree
of a United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent'p representative,
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
inaterial;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate or poll our employees regarding their
union activities, threaten them with dismissal or other economic
reprisals for such activities, help them prepare forms evidencing
their withdrawal from union membership, induce them to sign
such forms, or-in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce them in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist TRANSPORT WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 257, CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, 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 mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in TRANSPORT WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 257, CIO, or in any other labor organi-
zation of our employees by discharging or in any other manner
discriminating against our employees in regard to hire or tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE wii offer to W. H. Rose immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges.
ROYAL PALM ICE COMPANY 1301
WE WILL make whole W. H. Rose for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him.
ROYAL PALM ICE COMPANY,
Employer.
By --------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Clarence D. Musser, Esq., of Atlanta, Ga., for the General Counsel.
A. Meredith Woore, Esq., of Miami, Fla., for the Respondent.
William Grogan, Int. V. P., TWA, CIO, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge originally filed on September 8, 1949, and thereafter twice
amended on October 26, 1949, and June 20, 1950 , respectively , by Transport Work-
ers Union of America , Local 257 . CIO, herein called the Union, a complaint was
issued on June 30, 1950, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board' through the Regional Director for the Tenth Region ( Atlanta, Georgia),
alleging that Royal Palm Ice Company , herein called the Respondent , engaged
in and continues to engage in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges in substance
that the Respondent : ( 1) On or about August 29 , 1949, discharged W. H. Rose,
an employee , and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate him because of his
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union , and because he engaged
in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining and other mutual aid and protection ; and (2 ) did from on or about
June 15, 1949 , until the present, interfere with, restrain , and coerce its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by interrogation
concerning their union activities , and by threats and warnings of economic
reprisal by reason thereof.
Copies of the charge , the amended charges, the complaint , and notice of the
hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
The Respondent filed an answer combined with a motion to dismiss the charges
and the complaint . It denied all the allegations of unfair labor practices, and
as the basis of the motion asserted that: ( 1) The complaint was not signed by
anyone; ( 2) the Respondent is not engaged in interstate commerce ; and (3)
the Union has not complied with the requirements of the Act and the laws of
the State of Florida requisite to an investigation by the Board of any questioi
raised by it affecting commerce and the issuance of a complaint based thereon-
By reason of the findings hereinafter made, the motion to dismiss was denied.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at West Palm Beach, Florida, on
July 17 , 18, and 19, 1950, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated
1 Herein separately designated as the General Counsel and the Board.
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were 'represented by counsel, partic-
ipated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues
involved. At the conclusion of the hearing opportunity was afforded to all
parties to argue orally before the Trial Examiner and to file briefs and proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. All briefs received have been given due
consideration.
No merit is found in the contention of the Respondent that the complaint
was not signed by anyone. It appears from the record that the Regional Di-
rector of the Tenth Region on June 10, 1950, signed, issued, and served upon
the Respondent a notice of hearing in the name of the Board to which was at-
tached copies of the charge and complaint. The charge was duly signed by the
charging party, and the complaint was a formalization of the charge. The action
taken by the Regional Director fully complied wrtlr Section 203.15 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations. It is not required that the complaint be separately
signed or verified under oath when officially issued and attached to the notice
of hearing over the signature of the Regional Director certifying that "In wit-
ness whereof the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on
behalf of the Board, has caused this Complaint and Notice of Hearing to be
signed by the Regional Director." The Respondent was not prejudiced by failure
to separately sign the complaint, and cannot complain so long as ample notice
and opportunity to defend against the charges is afforded. It is not'contended
that these elements were lacking? Contrary to the contentions of the Respondent,
the complaint is based upon the original charge, the first amended charge, and
the second amended charge. The filing of the-second amended. charge cannot,
under the circumstances of this case, be construed as an abandonment of the
initial charges. The Trial Examiner, therefore, finds that the complaint was
predicated upon the combined charges and its issue was based upon unfair
labor practices occurring within 6 months prior to the filing of the charge with
the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such
charge is made. The original charge was served on the Respondent by regis-
tered mail on September 12, 1949. The first amended charge was likewise served
on October 31, 1949; and the second amended charge was served on June 23, 1950.
With respect to the contention that the Union has not complied with the
requirements of the Act and laws of the State of Florida, the Board has held
that compliance is a matter for administrative determination and is not litigable
by the parties! The Board is not concerned with whether the Union has com-
plied with the laws of the State of Florida, since that is a matter of State
administration.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Royal Palm Ice Company is a Florida corporation engaged in the manufacture
and distribution of ice, and is a subsidiary of Southeastern Public Service Com-
pany; a holding company incorporated in the State of Delaware. It operates 12
plants within the State of Florida located at Coconut Grove, Delray Beach,
2 Meier cE Frank Company, Inc., 89 NLRB 1016 ; Columbia Pictures Corporation, et al.,
82 NLRB 568.
3 The Ann Arbor Press, 85 NLRB 58; Pauls Valley Milling Company, 82 NLRB 1266.
ROYAL PALM ICE COMPANY 1303
Homestead, Kissimmee, Lake Worth, Miami, Miami Beach, New Smyrna Beach,
Saint Cloud, West Lake Wales, West Palm Beach, and Wildwood. Only the
West Palm Beach plant is involved herein. The Company annually purchases
supplies and materials in excess of $100,000, chiefly through its central or main
office at Miami, Florida, the major portion of which originates outside the State
of Florida, although the orders are generally placed locally. Its annual sales
approximate $1,000,000. It has approximately 250 employees. The' 3 plants at
New Smyrna, West Lake Wales, and Wildwood are engaged exclusively in the
icing of railroad cars of the Fruit Growers Express Company moving over the
Florida East Coast Railroad and the Seaboard Air Line Railroad, which con-
sumes approximately 50 percent of its total production of ice. Other plants
including the one at West Palm Beach engage in both a retail and wholesale
business. The business activities of the Respondent at West Palm Beach include
the rental of cold storage, rooms to private and commercial users, and to a
limited extent the icing of railroad refrigerator cars, motor trucks, and boats.
At all times herein concerned the chief executive officer of the Respondent was
H. C. McConnell, vice president and general manager, with offices in Miami,
Florida. The management of the West Palm Beach plant was delegated to Robert
C. Browne, district manager, and L. G. Midgett, plant manager, with offices at
the plant in West Palm Beach, Florida. George McKissick was chief engineer.
The Board has previously found, and the undersigned now finds that the
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act .4
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Transport Workers Union of America, Local 257, CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Having more than 20 years' experience in the ice business, including super-
intendence of an ice plant, W. H. Rose sought employment with the Respondent.
He expressed preference for a job as manager of an ice plant, but being sorely
in need of employment agreed to accept any available job suitable for a man of
his age. He was 43 years of age. In November 1947 he was hired by Robert
C. Browne, district manager, as a platform man at the West Palm Beach plant.
His wages commenced at 80 cents per hour and in July 1948 were increased to
90 cents. His duties included the delivery of ice to route drivers, checking
beer in and out of storage, and the sale of ice from the platform.
The platform at the plant was operated in two shifts. John Wright worked
from 4 :30 a. in. to 2 p. in.; and W. H. Rose worked from 2 p. in. to 10 p. in. A
resident operating engineer remained at the plant throughout the night, and
made sales after the platform was closed A specified amount of ice was with-
drawn from storage each day to fill delivery and sale requirements from the
platform. A cash register was provided for use of the platform operators. The
key to the cash register was retained by a cashier in the office, who checked
receipts from sales once daily at approximately 2 p. in. and removed the cash.
No check was made at 10 p. in. when W. H. Rose went off duty, but he was re-
quired to place all money in a cigar box and leave it in a depository in custody
Royal Palm Ice Company, 81 NLRB 858: 82 NLRB 879.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of-the operating engineer . At that time the engineer retained about $2 in
change, the' cash register was moved into the office for the night, and the cigar
box was locked up in a pigeon hole. At approximately 5 a. m. each morning the
engineer returned the money including additional receipts to the cash register in
charge of the platform man coming on duty at that time. In July 1949, a metal
box with lock was provided as a container at night in lieu of the cigar box there-
tofore in use. Under the foregoing system it was well-nigh impossible to fix
individual responsibility for discrepancies between the register recording and
the cash receipts.
The management became concerned because cash receipts. failed to measure up
to the amount of ice withdrawn from storage each day. It was determined that
the shrinkage of ice was excessive and the cash register frequently revealed
shortages sometimes as high as $5 daily when checked by the cashier. That
situation was called to the attention of the platform men, and they were requested
to be more careful in their transactions. During the separate vacation periods
of the two platform operators in August 1950, the' cashier was instructed to keep a
strict account of shortages in the cash register recordings. It was determined
therefrom that shortages were considerably less while W. H. Rose was on vaca-
tion and on that basis the excessive shortages were attributed to the shortcomings
of W. H. Rose.
B. Union activities
1. Self-organization of employees
In the early part of July 1949, W. H.• Rose initiated and promoted a movement
for self-organization of the employees at the West Palm Beach plant. He dis-
cussed the subject with some of the employees, and arranged for 'a meeting at
Tommy's Tavern. The operating engineer and practically all white drivers
attended the meeting, but the Negro drivers were not invited. At this meeting
Rose distributed union-membership application cards. Thereafter, he conferred
with officials of the Union at Miami, and arranged for an organizational meeting
of the employees with the union representatives. Meanwhile, he obtained signed
membership cards from practically all of the Negro drivers.
The organizational meeting of the employees was held at the home of W. H.
Rose on July 14, 1949. All of the-white drivers and the operating engineer were
present. Edmund Waller and Jack D. Schmidt appeared on behalf of the Union,
and explained the procedure for organization. All of the white men signed and
delivered application cards for membership, and W. H. Rose delivered signed
cards from the absent Negro drivers. A group agreement was entered into not to
divulge information to outsiders concerning their concerted activities. Fol-
lowing the organization, the Union addressed a letter to the Respondent request-
ing recognition as the collective bargaining representative of its employees. The
Respondent declined to recognize the Union, but consented to hold an election
to determine the issue of representation. A consent election was called for
August 26, 1949.
2. Defection in the Union
Within a day or two after the union meeting at Rose's home , three of the
white drivers, Franklin T. Symonett, Fred Edward Lehman, and Franklin
Ellis McGregor, jointly decided to repudiate membership in the organization.
Symonett called District Manager Robert C. Browne, and requested a confer-
ence. Browne visited Symonett on his ice route, and was there informed con-
cerning the activities of the employees.: He stated to Symonett that it was
ROYAL PALM ICE COMPANY 1305
unfair for the employees to slip around and sign union cards, that they would
be better off without a union, that the Company would double up on ice routes
if forced to pay double time for Sundays, and that the employees would not earn
as much working on an hourly basis. Symonett agreed to desert the Union and
advise other employees to withdraw their membership also. Thereafter, the
three dissenters in collaboration with the management promoted a campaign
to suppress the movement for self-organization and to discredit the leadership
of W. H. Rose.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The defection of Symonett, Lehman, and McGregor unleashed a crusade against
the Union in which officials and supervisory employees of the Respondent parti-
cipated, as follows :
1. Interrogation of W. H. Rose 6
Following the union meeting of July 14, 1949, Robert C. Browne, the district
manager, interrogated W. H. Rose concerning the union activities of himself
and John Wright. Rose disclaimed any knowledge thereof. A few days later
Rose was called to the office of Mr. Browne and asked whether he was a member
of the Union. Again he denied participation in the union activities. Inquiry
was made at the same time concerning the union status of the Negro drivers
and Lehman. Having before him a duplicate copy of the Union's contract with
City Ice & Fuel Company, the district manager asserted that if the Royal Palm
Ice Company entered into such a contract, working hours would be limited to
40 hours per week and that the earnings of the drivers would be limited to a
weekly guarantee of $50, whereas they were now earning much more than that
amount in excess commissions because of unlimited working hours. He also
informed W. H. Rose that a petition for withdrawal from the Union had been
drafted by the Respondent's lawyer in Miami.
Soon after his return from vacation about the middle of August, Rose was
again called to the office of the district manager and interrogated concerning
his union activities. At that time Mr. Browne accused him of being the ring-
leader in organizing the Respondent's employees, and'told him there was no use
in lying about it because he (the district manager) had learned all about the
union meetings at Tommy's Tavern and at Rose's house. Mr. Browne said
"Where there's smoke, there must be fire."
2. Interrogation of Thornton Fuller
After notices of the consent election were posted, Thornton Fuller (a Negro
laborer) was interrogated while policing the plant office. The district manager
asked him how he expected to vote, and asserted that conditions would be
better, there would be better jobs, and that everybody would be better off with-
out a union. Mr. Browne inquired whether W. H. Rose had talked to him about
the Union, and warned him not fool with Rose. Browne told him that if the
Unioh did not come in he might get a truck driving job with higher wages, but
that if the Union came in he would not have a job. The record discloses that
Fuller was later given the job of driving a truck and hauling ice from the plant
at Delray Beach, Florida. He was laid off in April 1950, presumably because
of his drinking habits.
Deduced from . testimony of W. H. Rose.
Deduced from testimony of Thornton Fuller.
929979-51-vol. 92-84
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On another occasion in the engine room during the preelection period the
chief engineer , George McKissick, explained to Fuller how the ballot should
be marked, asked him how he expected to vote, and told him to use his own
judgment because it might cause him to lose his job and it might not.
3. Interrogation of Willie A. Rogers 7
Prior to the election in the latter part of August 1949, the district manager,
Robert C. Browne, approached Willie A. Rogers (a Negro laborer) on the plat-
form at the plant, showed him one of the notices containing a sample of the bal-
lot, and inquired how he intended to vote. On August 23, Rogers was called to
Mr. Browne's office and there questioned by him concerning the activities of
W. H. Rose. Mr. Browne inquired whether Rose, Paducah, or Everman had
talked to him about the Union. Upon denial of such conversations Rogers
was accused of lying about it. Mr. Browne intimated that some undesirable
employees might be removed from the plant, and asked Rogers if he wanted his
name continued on the payroll.
4. Interrogation of Ernest Curington 8
On several occasions Ernest Curington, a Negro ice route driver, was inter-
rogated concerning the union activities. His route foreman (Barker) inquired
whether he wanted a union, and whether he had signed a union card. The chief
engineer (McKissick) asked him whether he had joined the Union, and if he did
not think they were getting along well enough as they were. The district man-
ager (Browne) inquired whether W. H. Rose had said anything to him about the
Union.
5. Interrogation of Dock Moses °
Dock Moses, a Negro truck driver, was called to the office of the district man-
ager during the latter part of July.. Mr. Browne there inquired whether he had
joined the Union, and upon his denial stated "some of you fellows are lying about
this thing."
6. Meetings with the district manager
Under the leadership of Symonett; Lehman, and McGregor a meeting of em-
ployees was called in the office of Robert C. Browne on an afternoon during the
latter part of July presumably to discuss withdrawal from the Union. At ap-
proximately 1 p. m. the chief engineer, George McKissick, called T. C. McKee,
the operating engineer, by telephone and told him to come to the plant. Upon
arrival he was asked whether he had joined the Union, and told to go upstairs
to Mr. Browne's office. There a group of employees were assembled in the pres-
ence of the district manager.
Mr. Browne first addressed the group by saying "Well, fellows, why we are
here, there are some of you fellows that have joined up with the union."-"I
don't know who, but I do know some of you signed up." "You probably heard
the union side of it, now I will tell you the company's side of it."" By reference
to other union contracts, he explained in substance that if the Union came in
there would be an increase in hourly wages, but that the number of working
hours would be reduced, and that he could put on more trucks and bring the
7 Deduced from testimony of Willie A. Rogers.
8 Deduced from testimony of Ernest Curington.
0 Deduced from uncontradicted testimony of Dock Moses.
30 Testimony of T. C. McKee.
ROYAL PALM ICE COMPANY 1307
salaries nearly equal, if he wanted to. It was pointed out that some of the
route drivers were now making a great deal more than others. He also said
something about the men sneaking around to his back and cutting his throat
by joining the Union.
During the course of the meeting, Robert C. Browne called for a show of hands
by those who desired to withdraw from the Union. All present indicated that
they wished to have their union-membership cards returned to* them, and Mr.
Browne agreed to prepare a petition to be signed by the employees for that
purpose."
Through the instrumentalities of the Respondent the withdrawal petition was
drafted, and the employees were notified that it was in the office for signatures.
Mr. Browne absented himself on other businesses, and placed L. G. Midgett, the
plant manager, in charge of the document= During working hours the em-
ployees were individually summoned to the office and_ given an opportunity to
sign the paper. It was signed by. 26 employees. Three of the men, including
W. H. Rose, did not sign it. After obtaining the signatures, the plant manager
placed the petition in a drawer of Mr. Browne's desk. Further disposition of the
petition is not shown by the record, but it does appear that on August 3, 1949,
an attorney for the Respondent in Miami addressed a letter to the Regional
Director of the National Labor Relations Board in Atlanta, Georgia, inquiring
as to what procedure should be followed by employees desiring to withdraw their
names and have their cards or other evidence of agreement with the Union
canceled.13
During the month of August prior to the election an evening meeting was held
in the district manager's office at which Mr. Ergwne told the employees that
they could vote any way then wanted to, and he suggested that a union repre-
sentative come down to the plant with the employees to present his side of the
picture, and then let the Company present its side. It was his contention that
the employees were being disturbed at all hours of the night by advocates of
the Union. Mr. Browne had received a letter from Respondent's -auditor in the
Miami office complaining about delinquencies of the ice route drivers in failing
to properly account for collections from their customers. He read the letter to
the employees at the time, and stated that if they had more business than they
could take care of, that more trucks would be put on, so they could get out and
collect the money and bring it in, and would not have to come in at 7 and 8
o'clock at night 14
Thornton Fuller, a Negro laborer, testified in substance that Mr. Browne, in the
course of his remarks to the group of employees, stated that the way was open
for them to join or not join the Union. If the Union came in they would make
no more than they were making now-would not make as much. More trucks
and drivers would be put on, and there would be no more Christmas turkeys and
vacations with pay.
Willie A. Rogers, a Negro laborer, testified in substance that Mr. Browne told
him that if the Union came in the giving of Christmas turkeys and money in
time of sickness would be stopped.
Ernest Curington, a Negro ice route driver, testified in effect that Mr. Browne
stated that "he was not going to tell us not to join the union, and was not going
11 Testimony of Franklin T. Symonett.
14 Testimony of L. G. Mlidgett.
78 Respondent's Exhibit No. 2.
14 Testimony of Robert C. Browne. He specifically denied making any threats or promises
at any time, or saying that the giving of Christmas turkeys and vacations with pay would
be discontinued if the Union came in.
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
to tell us to join ; but he said that he had been nice to us, but- if we went into
the union, the things he had been doing for us, he was not going to do any
more. . . . If we get into the union, lie would let the union help us; he
was not going to help us." The witness further testified that he could not
remember the exact words spoken, but that Mr. Browne said that more trucks
would be put on if they went into the Union.' He also stated that inasmuch as
the Union required a 40-hour week, the employees would not be allowed to work
more than 40 hours a week.
Dock Moses, a Negro ice route driver, testified in substance that Mr. Browne
said if the employees were fools enough to want a union to go ahead and get it.
He asserted, however, that the Union would not guarantee as much as the em-
ployees were now earning, which in some cases ranged from $75 to $95 per week.
All- that would be cut out if the Union came in. He would not- permit anyone
from the Union to give him orders what to do. He would put on more trucks.
If the situation required 10 more trucks, he would put them out there.
Fred Postell, an ice route driven; testified that he customarily attended monthly
meetings of the employees at which the management discussed various matters
pertaining to the business of the Respondent. He signed a union card, and after-
wards requested Mr. Browne to get it back for him. He signed the withdrawal
petition freely and voluntarily. He never heard Mr. Browne or any other
officials make any threats, warnings, or promises to any of the employees. The
only thing Mr. Browne said was "If you want the union, you could join. It was
up to the men. If they didn't want it, they would not have to join. Ile said he
didn't threaten them to join or threaten them not to join."
When questioned by the Trial Examiner, this witness stated that he did not
recall any meeting other than regular monthly meetings, and that he never heard
Mr. Browne talk to the employees at the meeting at any time about the Union.
John Wright, a platform man, testified in substance that he became sick and
tired of hearing about the Union. After hearing both sides of the question he
concluded that the employees would be better off without a union. Mr. Browne
told him that he would not interfere with his joining the Union, if he wanted to
join. When told by the bookkeeper that the withdrawal petition was in Mr.
Browne's office, he signed it freely and voluntarily. He was on vacation at the
time of the election, and did not vote.
Robert C. Browne, district manager, testified in substance that he participated
in meetings of the employees and preparation of the withdrawal petition at the
request of the employees themselves; and that he never at any time threatened
economic reprisal because of their union activities.16 He presented the Em-
ployer's side of the representation issue, but always told the employees that
they were free to join or not join the Union. At the request of Harvey C. Mc-
Connell, vice president and general manager, he called a meeting of the em-
ployees at the plant in West Palm Beach on the night before the election on
August 25, 1949.
7. The meeting of August 25, 1949
Harvey C. McConnell, vice president and general manager of the Respondent,
appeared before a meeting of the employees on the night before the election. At
that time he spoke concerning the problems and policies of the Royal Palm Ice
Company, and presented his views concerning the .Union. He also told the
11 Much of the testimony concerning interrogation of employees and discussion of their
union activities at meetings in his office was not contradicted.
ROYAL PALM ICE COMPANY 1309
employees that they had a right under the law to join the Union, and that if
they did so he would sit down with their representative and negotiate a contract
and abide by it. Preparatory to his speech he studied the Act, and endeavored
to restrict his remarks to the ambit of the free speech amendment set forth in
Section 8 (c) of the Act.
D. The discriminatory discharge of W. H. Rose
The evidence fails to disclose any serious complaints against W. H. Rose prior
to his activities on behalf of the Union in July 1.949, When Symonett, Lehman,
and McGregor deserted the Union and collaborated with the Respondent to
bring about defeat of the employee organization, W. H. Rose became a marked
man. Other employees were interrogated as to their dealings with Rose and
their sympathies for the Union. They were warned to avoid him, and he was
not invited to attend any of the meetings at which the management discussed
union affairs with the employees. He was at work on the platform at the exact
time the meeting was held in the office and presence of the district manager to
discuss withdrawal from the Union. He was not invited to attend.
While the union activities were in progress the management recommended
to the main office at Miami that Rose be discharged, but no action was taken
at that time. Had sufficient cause existed for his discharge, it is reasonable
to believe that his discharge would have been approved and made effective at
that time. Shortly thereafter, Rose went on vacation for a period of 17 days,
and during his absence justification for his discharge was sought by keeping a
more strict account than usual of shortages in the cash register for the avowed
purpose of comparison with shortages when he was on the job. No definite
figures as to these shortages were submitted, but testimony was offered tending
to show that they were less during his absence. Under the system employed
by the Respondent it was impossible to fix responsibility for shortages upon any
particular individual inasmuch as the cash register was used in common by at
least three employees before checks and balances were determined by the cashier
each day.
Upon his return from vacation hose was called to task in the office of the
district manager not about shortages but concerning his union activities. At
that time he was accused of lying about his affiliations with the Union and be-
rated as the ringleader of the movement for employee organization.
In the meantime Fred Edward Lehman informed the plant manager that
Rose had gone to Miami on union business after his return from Canada, and
stated that Rose requested him not to report that fact. Lehman also informed
the plant manager that Rose had made derogatory remarks about the manage-
ment and had called the plant manager a pimp. Rose was never given an op-
portunity to refute that prejudiced information.
As a result of the election the Union was repudiated as collective bargaining
agent for Respondent's employees, although a substantial majority had signed
the union cards. • On the third day following the election (August 29, 1949),
W. H. Rose was called in by L. G. Midgett, the plant manager, and discharged.
In describing what took place at the time of the discharge, L. G. Midgett testified
as follows :
Well, I was the one that discharged Mr. Rose. I called him in the office
at two o'clock, when he got off duty on a Monday, and I told Mr. Rose that
I heard that he had told one of the employees that I was nothing but a
pimp, that I ran to Mr. Browne with everything I heard that went around
1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the-plant ; and I asked-him if this was true, which he denied. He said it
was not true.
I told Mr. Rose, I said, "Rose, I have been noticing you around from time
I have been here, and from your actions and attitude around here, I don't
think you are satisfied with your job, and I think the best thing for you
to do is look for other employment."
Mr. Rose told me, he said the reason I was letting him go was because
of union activities. I told Mr. Rose that had nothing to do with it ; I had
not mentioned the union whatsoever. That was not the reason I was letting
him go ; the reason I was letting him go was what I had stated before that
I did not think he was capable for the job.18
Thereafter, the Respondent reported to the Florida Industrial Commission
that Rose was discharged for misconduct and for being a troublemaker. It
has not been shown by reliable evidence, however, that Rose was a trouble-
maker or that he was guilty of misconduct. The undersigned is not convinced
that Rose made slanderous remarks to Lehman and his confederates concerning
the officials of the Respondent or that he called the plant manager a pimp. No
merit is found in the contention that Rose was a temporary employee, and
Respondent's allegations that he caused dissension among other employees by
accusing them of wrongdoing in checking out ice and accounting for sales has
not been sustained. The circumstances of his discharge support a conclusion
that he was summarily fired within 3 days after. the election because of his
union activities, and for no other reason.
E. Concluding findings
From a preponderance of the evidence it is found that the Respondent inter=
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by interrogating W. H. Rose, Thornton Fuller,
Ernest Curington, and Dock Moses concerning their union affiliations and
sympathies. It is a violation of the Act per se to interrogate employees con-
cerning any aspect of their union activity.17 Such inquiries have an inherently
restraining effect upon employees,18 and the absence of threats of reprisal or
promises of benefits is immaterial." In this case, however, there is substantial
evidence that employees were both directly and indirectly threatened with loss
of employment and other economic reprisal. The prophecy of the district man-
ager that a union contract would result in shorter working hours, reduced commis-
sions, and an increase in the number of trucks on ice routes was calculated to
instill in the minds of employees Respondent's inclination to retaliate by making
adjustments in the conduct of its business detrimental to their interests. The
polling of employees in the office of the Respondent to determine their willingness
to abandon the Union, and the preparation and submission to them of a written
declaration or petition to withdraw their membership from the Union constituted
an illegal intrusion into their private affairs under conditions calculated to
suppress, restrain, and coerce a free and democratic exercise of the right to
self-organization. It has been held to be a violation of the Act if an employer
permits, sponsors, encourages, and/or causes to be drafted and circulated among
its employees during working hours petitions directed against a labor organiza-
1e L. G. Midgett stated on cross-examination that he personally disliked W. H. Rose,
and heard that he was gunning for his job as plant manager.
11 Standard -Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358.. -
38 Meier d Frank Co., Inc., 89 NLRB 1016.
1a The Ann Arbor Press, 85 NLRB 58.
ROYAL PALM ICE COMPANY 1311
tion , or promotes resignations from a union.20 The fact that employees them-
selves request or sponsor antiunion petitions does not in the opinion of the Trial
Examiner make it any less a violation of the Act for the employer to interfere,
collaborate, and participate therein. It appears from credible testimony that
the Respondent not only polled its employees in open meetings to encourage
disruption of the union membership, but also during working hours called the
individual employees into the plant office and submitted to them the document
for signatures. It is true-that some semblance of choice was given to the
employees in signing or not signing the petition, but it is clear that failure to
sign would invite and incur the disfavor of the Employer. It also appears from
credible testimony that officials and supervisory employees interrogated indi-
vidual employees as to how they expected to vote.in the election. Interference,
restraint, and coercion is not measured by the employer's intent or effectiveness,
but rather by whether the conduct is reasonably calculated or tends to interfere
with the free exercise of employees' rights under the Act:'
In the speech of H. C. McConnell, vice president and general manager, on
the eve of the election the undersigned finds no violation of free speech. The
statements made at that time failed, however, to repudiate or remove the inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion of other officials and supervisors more intimately
associated with the- employees in Respondent's plant at West Palm Beach.
With respect to discrimination against employees the Respondent has rational-
ized the discharge of W. H. Rose by attributing its action to misconduct and
troublemaking. In the absence of substantial and reliable evidence to sustain
such allegations, it is found from a preponderance of credible and convincing
evidence that the Respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of his employment to
discourage membership in a labor organization.
It is found, therefore, that the Respondent, to the extent hereinbefore indicated,
by interrogation of employees concerning their union activities, encouraging and
inducing resignations from the Union by threats of economic reprisal, and dis-
crimination in the tenure of employment of W. H. Rose to discourage membership
in a labor organization did engage in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
proscribed by the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
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
among the several States, and such of them as have been found to constitute
unfair labor practices tend to bring about labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
2D Dixie Culvert Manufacturing Company, 87 NLRB 554; H d H Manu facturing Com-
pany, 87 NLRB 1373 ; Amory Garment Company Inc ., 80 NLRB 182; The Red Rock Com-
pany, 84 NLRB 521; Kentucky Utilities Company, Inc., 83 NLRB 981; Briggs Antique
Company, Inc., 80 NLRB 345; Macon Textiles Inc., 80 NLRB 1525.
21 Dixie Shirt Company, Inc., 79 NLRB 127 ; Columbian Carbon Company , 79 NLRB 62 ;
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, 81 NLRB 557.
13-12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
By reason of discrimination in the tenure of employment of W. H. Rose, it
will be recommended that the Respondent offer to him immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the Respondent make
him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination by pay-
ment to him of a sum of money equivalent to that which he would have earned
as wages since the date of his discharge. The loss of pay will be computed on
the basis of each separate calendar quarter.or portion thereof during the period
from Respondent's discriminatory action to the date of a proper offer of rein-
statement. The quarterly periods herein called "quarters" shall begin with the
first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined
by deducting from a sum equal to that which this employee would normally
have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, his net earnings,22 if any, in
other employment during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall
have no effect upon the back-pay liability of any other quarter. The Respondent
will make available to the Board upon request its payroll and other necessary
records to facilitate the checking of the amounts of back pay due. 21
The past conduct of the Respondent as revealed by the unfair labor practices
described in Section III, above, indicate a determined and continuing effort to
discourage and defeat the self-organization of its employees.. Finding therefrom
a propensity on the part of the Respondent to continue such efforts in the future,
it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act Y9
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Transport Workers Union of America , Local 257, CIO, 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 exercise
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. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or terms
or conditions of employment of W. H. Rose, to discourage membership in a labor
organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 ( a) (3) 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.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
22 The term "net earnings" means gross earnings less expenses such as transportation,
room, and board incurred by an individual employee in connection with obtaining work
and working elsewhere , which would not have been incurred but for this unlawful discrimi-
nation and the consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere . Crossett Lumber
Company, 8 NLRB 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county,
municipal , or other work-relief projects, shall be considered earnings . Republic Steel
Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
23 F. W . Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289 ; Pratt , Reed & Company , Incorporated, 90
NLRB 1499.
24 May Department Stores v. N . L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.