Stor-All Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1148 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in their right to' self-organization"
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Retail Clerks Union, Local 428, AFL, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2, (5) of the Act.
2. All employees at Respondent's San Jose, California, store, excluding super-
visors as defined by the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. On January 25, 1950, Retail Clerks Union, Local 428. AFL was, at all times
since has been and now is, the representative of a majority of Respondent's
employees in the appropriate unit described above for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on and after January 25, 1950, to bargain collectively with
Retail Clerks Union, Local 428, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all its
employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of
the Act.
5. By said refusal, by conferring benefits on its employees for the purpose of
inducing them to refrain from union affiliation and activities, by questioning
employees concerning their union activities, and by threatening to close its San
Jose store rather than assent to the union shop, the Respondent has engaged
in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
1 *6. 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.]
11 May Department Stores, 326 U. S. 376.
STOR-ALL CORPORATION and NEW FURNITURE & APPLIANCE DRIVERS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 196, INTERNATIONAL,
BROTIJERI-IOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELP-
ERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L. Cases Nos. 21-CA-867 and 21-RC-
1188. Jwne 7, 1951
Decision and Order Remanding Case 1
On February 8 and 9, 1951, a hearing was held in the above-en-
titled consolidated proceeding before Trial Examiner James R.
Hemingway, who issued his Intermediate Report on March 6, 1951,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and
(5) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action.
:'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Murdock and Styles].
94 NLRB No. 168.
STOR-ALL CORPORATION 1 149
During the course of the hearing the Respondent sought to intro-
-duce testimony to show that the charging Union had obtained the
signatures of the Respondent's employees on union-authorization cards+
through the use of coercion. On objection by counsel for the General
Counsel, the Trial Examiner excluded the proffered testimony on the;
grounds that it was irrelevant and immaterial to the issues presented,
inasmuch as the Respondent did not discover the alleged coercion
until after the Board had conducted an.election to determine whether
the, Union represented a majority of the employees in the unit in-
vohved. However, although the facts. which the Respondent sought
to, prove with regard to the Union's ' use of coercion to obtain the
employees' signatures may not have been relevant to the issue of the
Respondent's violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, in view of the
Board's decision in Lerner Shops of Alabama, Inc., et al.,2 those facts
were nevertheless relevant to a determination of the propriety of the
Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union after the Union had
obtained union-authorization cards from a majority of the Re-
spondent's employees in an appropriate unit.
We therefore find that although the specific testimony of the wit-
ness, Afirosav, which was excluded by the Trial Examiner, could have
been properly excluded in view of its hearsay- character, its rejection
on the grounds of immateriality and irrelevancy may have unduly
misled the Respondent into a failure to produce other witnesses 3 who
would have given competent testimony in support of the Respondent's
contention. lVecordingly, we have decided that the case should be
remanded to the Trial Examiner for the purpose of providing the
Respondent with an opportunity to prove, through competent testi-
mony, that the Union obtained the signatures of the Respondent's
employees through the use of coercion, and thus may not have rep-
resented an uncoerced majority of the, employees in the unit involved
on and after February 25, 1951.
Order
IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled Cases Nos.. 21-CA-867
and 21-RC-1188 be, and they hereby are, remanded to the Trial Ex-
aminer for appropriate action, including the reopening of the pro-
ceedings for the purpose of taking testimony on the issue of whether
the Union employed coercion in obtaining union-authorization cards
from the Respondent's employees and the making of findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations in a Supplemental Inter-
mediate Report.
2 91 NLRB 151; see also N .' L. R. B. V. Dadourian Export Corporation ,, 138 F. 2d 891
(C. A. 2).
'The Respondent ' s counsel offered to prove the same facts through . "other witnesses,"