Associated Grocers of Port Arthur, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 468 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of this unlawful policy will best be protected if the notice is now posted in all of the
stores within the unit.
In addition the General Counsel recommended that copies of the notice should
be mailed to all of the employees , supervisors , and officials of Respondent in the
New Orleans unit . Under all the circumstances , this recommendation is accepted as
to the Baton Rouge stores, where aggravated unfair labor practices have occurred at
several of the stores , but not accepted as to other stores within the jurisdiction of
the New Orleans unit because the number of these stores is not disclosed in the
record and sending notices to all of the individuals connected with all of-these
stores might prove to be a considerable burden upon Respondent.
In addition , the General Counsel recommended that Respondent assemble and
read the notice to all of its employees , supervisors , and officials within the New
Orleans unit. Under all the circumstances , this recommendation is accepted as to
the Baton Rouge stores but not as to the other stores.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 327,
AFL-CIO, and Retail Clerks International Association, Local No. 1691, AFL-CIO,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At various times in December 1960 and January and February 1961, and
thereafter, Respondent unlawfully threatened employees , interrogated employees,
made promises of benefit , and induced employees to spy upon and inform upon other
employees , thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the rights
guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Associated Grocers of Port Arthur , Inc. and Local Union No.
393, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Cases Nos. 23-CA-
1096 and 23-RC-1516. November 20, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 16, 1961, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, and recommending further that the election
held on July 15, 1960, in Case No. 23-RC-1516 i be set aside and a new
election held, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto .2
He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint -and recommended
that the complaint be dismissed with respect thereto. Thereafter, the
3 Pursuant to the Board 's Decision and Direction of Election Issued June 20. 1960
( not published in NLRB volumes).
2 On January 11, 1961 , the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Direction per-
taining to challenges to certain ballots cast and to certain objections filed by'the Union
herein to the conduct of the election . On January 24, 1961 , the Board ordered Cases
Nos. 23-RC-1516 and 23-CA-1096 consolidated.
134 NLRB No. 47.
ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF PORT ARTHUR, INC. 469
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a support-
ing brief. -
The Board 3 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex-
ceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Associated Gro-
cers of Port Arthur, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease sand desist from interrogating employees concerning their
union membership, sympathy, or activities, threatening employees
with adverse consequences in the event of union organization, promis-
ing employees benefits as a reward for rejecting union organization, or
in any like or similar manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist the Union herein 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 collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its warehouse in Port Arthur, Texas, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
8 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 [ Members Rodgers, Fanning,
and Brown].
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other than those found
herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election in Case No. 23-RC-1516,
held July 15, 1960, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that Case No.
23-RC-1516 be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for the Twenty-third Region for the purpose of conducting a new
election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the free
choice of a bargaining representative.5
5 Any new election shall be conducted among employees in the unit found appropriate
in the Decision and Direction of Election in this case issued June 20, 1960 , who are em-
ployed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of issuance of the notice
of election.
In the event the Respondent falls or refuses to comply with the terms of the Order in
Case. No. 23-CA-1096, the Regional Director is also authorized to conduct the new elec-
tion directed herein upon the written request of the Union.
. IAPPENDIX
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 Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
sympathies or activities nor will we threaten employees with ad-
verse consequences in the event Local Union No. 393, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, secures a majority, nor promise them benefits as
a reward in the event the Union does not secure a majority. ,
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere with em-
ployees' rights to a free election of representatives nor will we
in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join, or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in other\concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such
membership.
ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF PORT ARTHUR, 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.
ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF PORT ARTHUR, INC.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
471
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Proceedings in Case No. 23-CA-1,096, the complaint case, commenced with a
charge filed October 10, 1960. The complaint issued by the General Counsel
.through the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region alleges, in addition to
jurisdictional facts," that the above-indicated Employer, hereinafter sometimes called
the Respondent, engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and-coercion within
the purview of Section 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
hereinafter sometimes called the Act, and discriminatorily discharged employee
Ezekiel Thibeaux in contravention of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Respondent's
answer denies both the jurisdictional and unfair labor practice allegations of the
complaint, and admits the fact of Thibeaux's discharge. By order dated January 24,
1961, the Board ordered consolidated with the complaint case proceedings conse-
quent upon its Supplemental Decision dated January 11, 1961, in Case No. 23-RC-
1516, hereinafter sometimes called the representation case, involving unresolved
issues raised by a challenge to voter Stewart and by objections to the election therein.
The hearing was held at Port Arthur, Texas, January 31, through February 3, 1961,
inclusive. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity
to present evidence and argument on the issues in both cases. Subsequent to the hear-
ing briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent which have
been fully considered by me.
Upon the entire record herein; and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Associated Grocers of Port Arthur, Inc., is a cooperative wholesale grocer engaged
in the purchase and warehousing of grocery and related items and their resale and
delivery to independent retail grocer members. In its Decision and Direction of
Election in the representation case the Board found that Respondent's direct inflow
of goods from outside the State of Texas exceeded $50,000 annually, that Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it would effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction. Absent evidence of material change,
I make the same finding as to the complaint case . Bordo Products Company, 117
NLRB 313.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 393, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter called the Union, is the Charging
Party in the complaint case and the Petitioner in the representation case. At the
hearing Respondent stipulated the labor organization status of the Union. Accord-
ingly, it is found that the Union is a labor organization within the purview of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTIONS
TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION
A. Introduction to the issues herein
As noted above the Respondent Employer is a cooperative association wholesaling
groceries to its member retailers. Each retail member is a shareholder in the amount
of 15 shares of stock and purchases from Respondent grocery and allied items at the
latter's cost plus a small markup.' Overcharges on the part of Respondent are pro-
rated among its customer-stockholders on the basis of their volume of purchases.
Respondent has about 41 employees, most of them engaged in work incidental to the
warehousing and delivery of its merchandise. Dan Coleman, general manager, is in
direct charge of Respondent's operations and reports directly to the board of direc-
tors. Among the supervisory employees of Respondent are J. D. Moore, Rodney
King, and Arvel Valentine.
The Union filed a representation petition on March 7, 1960, and hearing was held
thereon April 5 and 19. The Board's Direction of Election issued June 20 and the
election was held July 15 resulting in a narrow defeat for the Union. On August 31
the Regional Director issued his report on the Union's challenges and objections and
1 Member customers are free to surrender their shares for refund if they become dis-
satisfied with Respondent's service.
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subsequent proceedings were had thereafter as referred to above . In the course of
the proceedings before me, the Board issued an order removing the issue as to the
eligibility of Stewart, the challenged voter. In his brief the General Counsel has con-
ceded that the record is completely lacking in evidence relating to Union's objection
No. 2.2 As a consequence unresolved issues before me in the representation case
are those relating to the Union's objections on the basis of employer interrogation
and coercion in the period immediately preceding the election (objection No. 6),
and the act of the Employer in advertising for employment applications in a news-
paper on July 12, 1960, 3 days preceding the election (objection No. 8).
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
As issued the complaint alleged 14 separate violations; at the hearing on motion,
I count was dropped and 2 were added. Each count is separately discussed below,
introductory lettering conforming to the complaint.
(a) The complaint alleges that in the period June 1 through July 15, 1960, J. D.
Moore, assistant manager, interrogated employees concerning union membership.
Kirby Veazie, a truckdriver for Respondent, testified that on the day before the elec-
tion Moore asked him about signing a card for the Union and advised him to vote
against it. Moore admits talking to Veazie about the Union and concedes that he
may have done so on more than one occasion; he denied ever asking Veazie if he
had signed a card or was a member. '
Truckdriver Warren Roberson testified to a conversation with Moore about a
month before the election in the course of which Moore asked him if he knew any-
thing about the Union and advised him to vote against it. Roberson also recounted
a second conversation with Moore about a week before the election in which Moore
again inquired as to what if anything Roberson knew about the Union and again
advised him to vote "No." Moore admits having a conversation with Roberson
sometime in May or early June but asserts that he stated only that the Company was
opposed to the Union and felt it was not the best for the employees. Fredrick Smith,
a warehouseman and truck helper for Respondent, testified to a conversation with
Moore about 2 weeks before the election in which Moore asked him if he was for
the Union or for the Company. Moore admits talking to Smith but places the day
of the conversation as May or early June and, while not specifically denying interro-
gation, states that the conversation generally consisted of Moore's expression of
opposition to the Union.
Jerry Thomas, a truckdriver for Respondent, testified to a conversation with Moore
about 3 days before the election in which Moore asked him if he knew anything about
the Union and whether any "guys" ever told him anything about it. Moore testified
that his conversation with Thomas occurred in May or early June and consisted only
of a general statement of opposition to the Union. Mack West, a truckdriver for
Respondent, testified to a conversation with Moore a few days before the election in
the course of which Moore asked him if he knew anything about ,the Union, if any
of the other "guys" had told him anything about it and which way he was going to
vote.3 Moore testified that his conversation with West was in May or the first part
of June and denied asking him about the Union or whether anyone had told him
about the Union or which way he was going to vote.
Ezekiel Thibeaux, the alleged discriminatee, testified to several conversations with
Moore commencing about June 1. In the initial conversation Thibeaux testified that
Moore specifically inquired as to whether Thibeaux was "against the company" or
"wanted the Union." In subsequent conversations about 2 or 3 weeks later Moore
inquired as to whether Thibeaux was attending union meetings. The third conversa-
tion with Moore, according to Thibeaux, took place 2 days before the election, in
which Moore asked him if he was still with the Company. Moore denied ever asking
Thibeaux if he was for the Union or for the Company. I was favorably impressed
with the demeanor of Roberson, Smith, Thomas, and West particularly, and accept-
ing their testimony, I find that Moore interrogated them as alleged and that Respond-
ent thereby interfered in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
(b) The complaint alleges that on or about July 1, General Manager Coleman
threatened employees with less hours of work if the Union organized the plant. The
proof offered in support of this allegation of the complaint is to be found in the
2 The Union does not dispute this concession. Objection' No. 2 related to failure to post
the sample ballot.
3 Although the cross-examination of West indicated a discrepancy between his testimony
at the hearing and his pretrial signed statement, I credit his testimony before me on my
appraisal of him on the stand.
ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF PORT ARTHUR, INC. 473
testimony of Smith to a conversation with Coleman about 2 weeks before the elec-
tion , in the course of which Smith asked for a loan and Coleman agreed to give it to
him and then referring to the Union said that if the Union came in there would
probably be layoffs and since Smith was the youngest he would probably be the first
laid off. Upon motion of the Respondent at the hearing I struck Smith's testimony
on the grounds it was not embraced within the allegations of the complaint. I
granted the request of counsel for the Union that the testimony be considered as
evidence in the representation case . Coleman 's version of this conversation agrees
with Smith 's in that it started in connection with the latter 's request for a loan, but
Coleman testifies that Smith introduced the Union and inquired as to the applicability
of seniority in the event of the Union's coming in, Coleman's role being that of
confirming that ordinarily seniority applies where a union organizes a plant.
I shall recommend dismissal of this count of the complaint.
(c) The complaint alleges that on or about July 1 Respondent 's buyer, King, in-
terrogated employees concerning the Union. Veazie testified that King talked with
him about the Union about 1 week before the election and inquired if he had signed
a card . Smith testified that about a month before the election , King asked him if he
had attended union meetings and whether anyone had talked to him about the Union.
Kenneth Gregory testified that about 1 week before the election King approached him
and said that he had heard that Gregory was the contact man for the Union and asked
him if he realized what he was doing. Lawrence Seypion testified to a conversation
with King about a week before the election in which King asked his opinion about the
Union and urged him to persuade other employees to vote against the Union.
King testified that he had only one conversation with Veazie and that was in April
shortly after Respondent received notice of the Union's petition . He testified to a
conversation with Smith but asserted it was on the same day that he discussed the
Union with Veazie, namely, in April. He conceded a conversation with Gregory
about 2 weeks prior to the election in which he approached Gregory and told him that
he had heard he was active in the Union and further asked him if he had thought
through what he was doing. With respect to any conversation with Seypion, King
testified that he talked about the Union with Seypion at or about the same time as his
conversations with Veazie and Smith.
On my evaluaion of the witnesses , I find and conclude that King interrogated
employees as alleged and that Respondent thereby interefered in violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a)(I).
(d) The complaint alleges that on or about July 1, Moore interrogated employees
concerning their union sympathy and told them if they voted for the Company they
would get a raise and if they voted for the Union they would get a strike. Smith testi-
fied to a conversation about 2 weeks before the election- in which Moore asked him
if he was for the Union or for the Company and when told that he was for the Com-
pany Moore said that if the employees voted for the Union, they would vote for a
strike and if they voted for the Company, they would vote for a raise. Moore testified
to a talk with Smith some 3 or 4 days before the election in which he showed Smith
an unmarked ballot and expressed the hope that he would vote "No." Moore also
testified to a conversation he places some time in May or the first part of June in the
course of which he told Smith that the Company was opposed to the Union and that
there were certain disadvantages to be considered in union representation . He denies
that there was any discussion of the possibility of a raise in that conversation.
I find Smith credible and accordingly find the allegations of the complaint sustained.
(e) The allegations of the complaint that Moore threatened fewer hours of work
do not appear to be substantiated by evidence, and I shall recommend their dismissal.
(f) The complaint alleges that on or about July 11 and 12, Respondent threatened
employees with replacement if the Union won the forthcoming election. On July 12
the Company placed an ad in the Port Arthur News help-wanted column advertising
for white employees in the warehouse. The advertisement is in evidence as General
Counsel's Exhibit No. 3.4 Coleman testified that approximately 100 applicants re-
sponded and arrangements were made for them to fill out their forms at a table
placed out on the loading dock within sight of employees. A large majority of the
warehouse and truckdriver employees are Negro.
Abraham Allen, Jr., testified to a conversation with Valentine about a week before
the election in which Valentine stated that the Company had enough applications to
hire more men and let the existing employees go if they voted the Union in.5 Abiatha
Scott who particularly impressed me as trustworthy, testified that Valentine talked to
him during the week of the election and referring to "all the white boys " putting appli-
i
s King conceded this to be the first advertisement specifying white warehouse help.
5 Valentine did not recall any conversation with Allen.
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cations in said they had received 119 and that if the employees voted for the Union
and struck Respondent would continue operating with the applicants as replacements
and that some of them were highly qualified. On cross-examination Scott added that
Valentine expressly stated that he was not making a threat to the job.
Smith testified to a conversation with Valentine occurring about 3 weeks before
the election in the course of which Valentine stated he was concerned about "these
here guys that came up to fill these applications" and stated that they could replace
employees if they struck. On cross-examination Smith's testimony indicated that he
was the one who raised the question with Valentine as to why "these guys" were
coming up to fill applications. Perry Lavergne testified to a conversation with King
on the day before the election in which King stated that the fellows who were filling
out the applications were not replacements except in the event that the Union got in
the warehouse and called a strike, the Respondent would have someone they could
depend upon.
Valentine testified to a conversation with Lavergne sometime between May 1 and
15. Valentine denied ever having a conversation about the Union with Abiatha
Scott. He does not recall any conversation with Smith about the applicants for
employment. King conceded that he talked to Lavergne within the week preceding
the election, stated that he knew Lavergne was shook up over the number of appli-
cants at the warehouse and assured him that he need not be, that the Company did
not intend and hoped it would not have to replace anyone, but that if the Union was
voted in and a contract was not acceptable the Respondent had to know whether it
could operate or not.
I find that Respondent interfered with and coerced employees by the July 12 adver-
tisement; its specification of white help, unexplained, plainly would have the natural
effect of intimidating the existing Negro complement. Although I find the remarks
of Valentine and King to be noncoercive, I find also that they would not suffice to allay
the coercive effect of the advertisement.
(g) The complaint alleges ,that on or about July 14, King threatened an employee
with loss of employment unless he made a speech against the Union. Thibeaux
testified to a conversation with King 2 weeks before the election in which King told
Thibeaux that he and Coleman thought it a good idea for Thibeaux to urge the boys
to vote against the Union. The subject was, according to Thibeaux, renewed the day
before the election in a conversation with King at the warehouse at which time King
said that if Thibeaux wanted to prove that he was a real company man he could
do it, and inquired if Thibeaux would be willing to give a speech to the employees and
their wives at the company party scheduled for that evening and point out the dis-
advantages of the Union. Thibeaux demurred and expressed doubt that his wife
would approve, whereupon King urged him to consult his wife. Thibeaux made no
speech but did attend the election eve dinner with his wife at which they were cor-
dially welcomed by Coleman. Nowhere does it appear that King, who also suggested
antiunion talks to Lawrence Seypion and Smith, made an express or implied threat
as to the consequences of failing to make the speech referred to-hereunder. I shall
recommend dismissal of this count.
(h) The complaint alleges that on or about July 14 Valentine threatened employees
with loss of work if Respondent's operations became unionized. Abraham Allen
testified that about a week before the election Valentine said that he had enough
applications to hire some more men and let the present employees go if they voted
the Union in. McKinley Allen testified that about the same time Valentine, in the
presence of employees Dozier and Smith, said that if the Union came in the em-
ployees would be working 40 hours per week (which would be a reduction in the
length of the workweek). Harry Lavergne testified that Valentine, about a week
before the election, said that the Employer did not want the Union in the ware-
house and that if it came in the Company would cut the hours down to 40 hours a
week with a reduction in take^home pay.
Valentine did not recall any conversation about the Union with Abraham Allen
but did testify to a conversation with Dozier while McKinley Allen was standing by
which, according to Valentine, occurred sometime in April. Valentine testified that
Dozier inquired concerning a rumor that the hours would be cut to 40 per week if
the- Union came in and Valentine stated that he did not know about any plans in that
regard but that in most cases union operations work about 40 hours. Valentine
testified that sometime in May he participated in a conversation with a group of
employees including Lavergne in the course of which one of the boys inquired as to
the possibility of the hours being cut in the event of the Union's success to which
Valentine expressed a lack of knowledge as to the outcome in that regard.
ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF PORT ARTHUR, INC. 475
I find these conversations occurred at the time and in the manner testified by the
General Counsel's witnesses . I find that the statements to Lavergne and Abraham
Allen amounted to threats in violation of Section 8(a) (1).
(i) The complaint initially alleged that on or about July 14, 1960, J. D. Moore
interrogated employees concerning union sympathy and affiliation. At the hearing
the complaint was amended by deleting paragraph i, the substance thereof being
incorporated into paragraph (a), as amended at the hearing.
(j) The complaint alleges that Coleman, in an election eve speech at a company-
sponsored party, told employees that if they voted against the Union the Company
would furnish parties, picnics, and other forms of entertainment for them and their
families.
It is uncontroverted that on the evening before the election the Company spon-
sored a party for employees and their wives at a downtown hotel and that the
assemblage was addressed by General Manager Coleman. The bulk of Coleman's
remarks on that occasion were read, the text of them being in evidence as General
Counsel's Exhibit No. 4. The issue herein is whether or not in unrecorded, prefatory
remarks Coleman made the promise of benefit referred to in the complaint.
Six employees present at the preelection dinner testified as to the contents of
Coleman's preliminary remarks. Five of these witnesses, Veazie, Scott, Roberson,
Seypion, and Thibeaux, testified that Coleman merely expressed a desire to have
more parties for families of employees in the future; Roberson testified that such
parties would, according to Coleman, have to wait the clearing up of the election,
the union situation being referred to by Coleman as a mess according to Seypion
and Thibeaux. Only Abraham Allen testified, and that after some prompting by
the General Counsel, that Coleman's remarks were to the effect that the Company
would have more picnics if the employees voted the Union out. Coleman initially
denied mentioning the possibility of picnics and parties in the future but later recalled
that he mentioned the possibility of having more parties and picnics for employees
and their wives and children. He denied conditioning such picnics and parties on
employees voting the Union out and denied that he referred to any "union mess"
as a necessary preliminary to be disposed of. King's testimony as to Coleman's
remarks agrees in substance with that of Coleman's. The weight of the evidence
does not appear to support the allegations of the complaint that Coleman conditioned
future picnics and parties on a vote against the Union; I shall, accordingly, recom-
mend dismissal of this count.
(k) The complaint alleges that on or about July 14, King promised employees a
raise if they would vote against the Union. Lavergne testified that King approached
him on that day and told him that a "no" vote was a vote for a raise and a "yes"
vote was a vote for a strike. King admitted saying that a "no" vote could mean
a raise and a "yes" vote could mean a strike but placed his remark in the middle
of a conversation in which he referred to the possibility of a strike in the event of
the Union's making contract demands unacceptable to management. The evidence
fails to indicate that King promised any employees a raise in return for their "no"
votes as contemplated by the complaint. I shall recommend dismissal of this
count.
(1) As amended at the hearing, the complaint alleges that commencing June 1
and continuing to the date of the election, Valentine interrogated employees con-
cerning union sympathy and affiliation. Veazie testified that sometime about the
middle of June Valentine asked him what he knew about the Union and whether he
had signed a card. Newkirk testified that about the same time Valentine asked
him whether he knew anything about the union business.6 Scott testified that during
the week of the election Valentine asked him whether "the boys" had invited him
to the meeting. Thibeaux testified to a conversation with Valentine in the week of
the election in the course of which Valentine, according to Thibeaux, inquired as
to the name of the leader of the Union and specifically whether it was employee
Corley or Bishop.7
Valentine admitted discussing the Union with Veazie but asserted the talk oc-
cured in the latter part of April or the first of May. He denied talking at any time
with Scott about the Union. Valentine admitted talking to Thibeaux about the
6 Newkirk credibly testified that in this conversation Valentine said that he knew
Newkirk and Thibeaux were in effect couriers between Houston and Port Arthur with
union cards.
7 Abraham Allen, Jr., Lavergne, Roberson, Seypion, and Hill also related Valentine
discussing the Union, but their accounts either fail to include interrogation or report
interrogation prior to June 1. Valentine's testimony that his talk with Newkirk occurred
in April is inaccurate in view of Newkirk's credible account of the time, unshaken by
cross-examination.
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union during the first part of the week of the election and, although he did not cate-
gorically deny any conversation with Thibeaux where employees Corley and Bishop
were mentioned, he testified that he did not recall such. I was particularly impressed
with the demeanor of Scott and Newkirk and I find their evidence sufficient to sustain
this count of the complaint.
(m) The complaint alleges that on or about July 14, Coleman told employees
that Respondent would never sign a contract with the Union. There does not appear
to be evidence substantiating these allegations of the complaint and I shall recom-
mend dismissal.
(n) The complaint alleges that on or about September 1, 1960, Respondent granted
wage increases in an attempt to defeat the Union. The evidence indicates that the
Respondent raised the wages of its employees 18 cents an hour. Coleman testified
that in February 1960, after inventory taking, an 18-cent an hour increase was
decided on to bring the truckdrivers to $1.50 and the order pullers to $1.44. The
increase had not been put into effect, however, by the filing of the petition on March 7
and Coleman sought legal counsel as to the propriety of making the increase effec-
tive in view of the petition; his attorneys advised against it. After the election
was held it was put into effect on August 25 in the amount previously decided upon.
The General Counsel's brief asserts that the relatively large size of the increase
coupled with the lack of evidence by way of confirmation of Coleman's testimony
that the increase had been decided upon prior to the advent of the Union establishes
that the raise was granted for the purpose of interfering with employees' freedom
of choice. General Counsel does not take the position that any pay increase during
the pendency of the representation case would be a per se violation, but asserts
that on the record the inference should be made that the increase herein was a
reward for the rejection of the Union.
I find Coleman a credible witness. The increase, accepting as a fact that it was
decided on prior to the advent of union organization, was not a violation of the Act.
Nor is a violation betokened by the circumstance that the increase was withheld
until after the election and then given when the results were known to be adverse
to the Union. Seven months is long enough to wait to effectuate what the record in-
dicates to have been a bona fide business decision.
(o) The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that General Manager
Coleman interrogated employees concerning their union membership and activities
in the period June 1 through July 15, 1960. Abraham Allen, Jr., testified that about
a week before the election Coleman asked him if he knew anything about the Union.
McKinley Allen testified that sometime in June, Coleman asked him whether the
fillers had been holding any meetings. Tom Credit testified to a conversation with
Coleman at the warehouse in July in which Coleman asked him for any informa-
tion he could get about the union effort. Scott testified that 2 days before the elec-
tion at the warehouse Coleman asked him whether he attended the union meeting
the preceding night. Hill testified to a conversation with Coleman the latter part
of June or the first of July in which Coleman stated, apparently in a questioning
manner, that the Company had information that Hill attended the union ;meeting.
Bernis Gaines testified that about 2 or 3 weeks before the election, Corem; tn asked
him whether he attended the union meeting and when he received an affirmative
reply inquired of him whether Tom Credit had been present at the meeting.
Coleman denied interrogating Abraham Allen during the week before the election
concerning his knowledge of the union activities. He admits that he interrogated
McKinley Allen but only about the time union activities started. He denies ques-
tioning Credit about the Union and denies any conversation of an interrogatory
nature with Hill. He recalls a conversation with Gaines sometime in the first part
of July but does not recall any union connection to the discussion. I find Scott
and Hill particularly credible witnesses and, accepting their testimony, find this
count sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.
(p) As amended at the hearing the complaint alleges that Moore, King, and
Valentine in the period July 7 to 15, 1960, showed employees a sample ballot marked
"no," while telling them that a "yes" vote was a vote for a strike and a "no" vote
was a vote for a raise.8 Scott testified that on the Thursday before the election King
approached him with a sample ballot marked in the "no" column, and stated that a
vote in the "yes" column meant a strike and a vote "no" meant a raise. King denied
showing a marked ballot to any employees.
Smith testified that about a week before the election Valentine approached him
with a sample ballot which had been marked with an X in the "no" box and at that
8In view of the particularity of the complaint, it is unnecessary to appraise testimony
of Veazie, Credit, Lavergne, Sinegal, West, and Seypion which reflect one or more but
not all of the specific elements of the complaint.
ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF PORT ARTHUR, INC. 477
time stated that a "no" vote was a vote for a raise and a "yes" vote was a vote
for a strike. Valentine in effect denied this. I was by no means unfavorably im-
pressed by Valentine but I accept Smith's testimony as the more credible.
Thibeaux testified that 2 days before the election Moore approached him with
a sample ballot which had been marked in the "no" column and stated that a vote
on the one side meant a raise and a vote on the other meant a strike. Moore
did not specifically dispute this testimony and, accordingly, I credit Thibeaux.
I find the allegations of this count sustained as indicated by my specific findings
above.
C. The alleged discriminatory discharge
Ezekiel Thibeaux was hired as a truckdriver April 14, 1956. He signed a card
early in the Union's organizational campaign and attended all the union meetings.
There appears to be some doubt, however, as to the extent of company awareness
of his union activities; thus, early in June or late in May, Moore engaged him in
an extended conversation and argument as to the merits of union organization and
finally inquired as to Thibeaux's sympathies to which Thibeaux replied that he was
against the Union and satisfied with existing working conditions.
In a later conversation Moore stated that the Company had been hearing that
Thibeaux had in fact been attending the union meetings; Thibeaux again denied
that he was a union adherent and stated that he was with the Company all the
way.9 Two days before the election, according to Thibeaux, Moore again inquired
as to his sympathies, showed him a sample ballot, and instructed him how to vote;
Thibeaux again stated that he-was going to vote with the Company.
Thibeaux also testified to a conversation with Coleman about the first of June
in which they agreed that the employees should vote the Union out. He had another
conversation with Coleman, about 2 weeks before, the election in the course of
which Coleman angrily accused Thibeaux of bullying activities in the warehouse 10
and said that Thibeaux's pending request for a loan of funds would have to wait
the outcome of the election. Again on the morning of the election Coleman
inquired as to how Thibeaux enjoyed the preceding night's supper. At that time
Thibeaux again protested his innocence upon the bullying charges and Coleman
told him to "get it straight with the boys."
Thibeaux had a conversation with Valentine during the week of the election
in which he volunteered that employees Dozier and Mitchell were leaders in the
union activity and that they were the ones who were most critical of management.
According to Thibeaux, Valentine at that time expressed the view that Coleman
and the other management officials had been of the opinion that Thibeaux and
Newkirk had been the leaders of union activity on the basis of the fact that they
were the only ones whose truck routes took them close to Houston where the Union
and the Board had offices.
According to Thibeaux, he had a conversation with King on the day following
Coleman's accusation of bullying activities in which Thibeaux explained that as a
Mason he could not get involved in trouble and he would like King to straighten
it out with Coleman and assure him of Thibeaux's innocence of the bullying charge.
Later in the day, King said that, after talking to Coleman, they thought it would
be a good idea for Thibeaux to make a speech against the Union. On the day
before the election King specifically asked Thibeaux to make such a speech at the
Company's supper that night ; Thibeaux demurred on the ground that his wife did
not approve of such activity. The record appraised on its totality indicates that
the Respondent was doubtful as to Thibeaux's sympathies.
Respondent's counsel asserted at the outset of the proceeding before me that
Thibeaux was discharged for dereliction of duty primarily in connection with his
handling of customers.ii Coleman testified that the primary basis of his discharge
was complaints from customers, specifically from member-customers Bean , L. & A.,
and Mrs. Wyatt, and that he discharged Thibeaux sometime on the afternoon of
September 19, after receiving a written complaint earlier that day from Bean.
This complaint, in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, complained about
Thibeaux's rough handling and breakage of merchandise and referred to a previous
complaint about him.ia
9 Driver Johnny Newkirk testified that about the middle of June, Valentine accused him
and Thibeaux of circulating union cards , a charge which Newkirk denied.
10 This'accusation suggests that Respondent believed Thibeaux to be active , in organiz-
ing for the Union ; it is, however, at most a suggestion
n Coleman credibly certified at the outset of the hearing that he had received no com-
plaints about other drivers
19 The basis for the discharge according to Coleman is member-customer displeasure with
Thibeaux; the reasonableness of their displeasure is not an issue and, as a consequence,
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Coleman testified that Mrs. Wyatt complained to him early in 1960 about Thi-
beaux's failure to pay his grocery bill, and that he told Thibeaux at that time that
he wanted the bill paid. Mrs. Wyatt later called in and reported that Thibeaux
had been observed taking a package from the Associated truck and giving it to
another person in ,a private automobile. It appears that her report was made to
the shipping clerk who questioned Thibeaux about it and received and was satisfied
with .the explanation that Thibeaux had bought some ice Dream off a distributor's
cluck and, meeting his wife in the family car, had turned it over to her. Coleman
had two or three additional conversations with Mrs. Wyatt one of which included
another complaint that Thibeaux had not paid his bill.
When Coleman first questioned Thibeaux about his account with Mrs. Wyatt,
Thibeaux said that he did not think it was right for Mrs. Wyatt to make the report.
When Coleman later talked with Mrs. Wyatt she informed him that Thibeaux had
"bawled" her out about her officious intermeddling and that he had also, on
.other occasions while in her store, complained before other customers that Mrs.
Wyatt's store lacked certain merchandise available at the warehouse. She also
.complained that Thibeaux had openly critcized her prices and had even called from
her store to that of a nearby competitor to verify that meat was cheaper there than
in Mrs, Wyatt's,
Coleman also received a report from Guerrera, Respondent's shipping clerk, to
the effect that Griffith of L. & A., a member grocer, had complained that Thibeaux
stacked merchandise in such a way as to cause it to fall over, and also to make
the labels unreadable. Griffith further said that he did not want Thibeaux back
in the store.
On or about July 12 Coleman told Thibeaux that he would not lend him money as
Thibeaux had requested, because they were having too many complaints on his
arguing with customers and disturbing them. Thibeaux inquired as to the source
of the complaints and Coleman reminded him that they had already discussed
complaints from Mrs. Wyatt, and referred additionally to complaints from Bean
who had reported that he did not want Thibeaux back in the store, and the new
complaint from L. & A. to the same effect. Thibeaux said they were all lies.
Coleman not only refused to lend him money at that time but testified, and I credit
him, that he stated that he would have to terminate Thibeaux's service if there
were any more complaints.
General Counsel's Exhibit No. 10 (Bean's written complaint) was, according to
Coleman, received September 19. On receiving it Coleman called Bean on the
telephone and Bean repeated that he did not want Thibeaux in the store at all.
Thereupon Coleman decided to terminate Thibeaux and instructed his office as-
sistant to write his `check. He called Thibeaux in and gave him his termination
check.
David Griffith, an employee of L. & A. Grocery and the stepson of the owner,
testified that during the first part of June, while he was in charge of L. & A.'s store,
he called in to Guerrera and complained that a large quantity, some 150 cases of
groceries, had fallen over, and that if Thibeaux, who had delivered them, did not
know how to stack groceries, he did not want him in his store any more. Guerrera
corroborated this testimony as recounted above.
Guerrera also identified truck reports indicating that Thibeaux made a delivery to
Ira Bean on June 1.13
Ira Bean confirmed that he had first complained to Moore about Thibeaux after
he found that some fingernail polish had been broken. At that time Bean complained
not only that Thibeaux was a rough handler of merchandise and also that Thibeaux
had become mad because Bean "called his hand" on the merchandise and that
Bean did not appreciate either the rough handling of the merchandise or Thibeaux's
attitude. He said that he did not want Thibeaux sent back any more-14
little value can be attached to testimony that other drivers have broken merchandise, that
a credit slip practice is routinely observed for such breakages, or other testimony indicat-
ing that Thibeaux may have been unjustly treated by the complaining customers
'$ The truck reports for June 1 indicate that on that date Thibeaux operated truck
No. 7 for some 10 hours and 197 miles and that it was loaded with merchandise, some of
Which was destined for Ira Bean's store Guerrera also identified Respondent's Exhibit
No. 2 as a delivery invoice of merchandise sold to Ira Bean with Ira Bean's stamp of
certification showing receipt and with the invoice numbers corresponding to those in-
dicated on the truck report previously referred to General Counsel's brief asserts that
these records could easily have been altered. The inference which seems more natural is
that testimony at variance with them is to be discounted.
34 Coleman testified that it was sometime in June that he learned of Bean's complaint
to Moore ; at that time he instructed Moore to have Guerrero straighten the matter out.
ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF PORT ARTHUR, INC. 479
I find the credible testimony to indicate that Coleman discharged Thibeaux as a
consequence of the customer complaints and not for union activity and I shall
recommend dismissal of the allegations of violation of Section 8(a) (3). I reach this
conclusion on'the basis of-convincing evidence as to the fact of member -customer
complaints about Thibeaux and the absence of convincing indications that Respond-
ent believed that the discharge of Thibeaux would be an appropriate vehicle for its
admitted hostility to the Union. i
D. The objections to the election
In view of the concession that evidence is lacking to support objection No. 2,
only objections Nos. 6 and 8 are before me. Objection No. 6 alleges that for several
days before, and specifically within the 72-hour period preceding the election, the
Company intimidated employees by interrogation and by criticizing them for attend-
ing union meetings .15 Objection No. 8 asserts that the July 12 newspaper advertise-
ment amounted to interference with a free election.
With respect to objection No. 6, in addition to the evidence recounted above re-
lating to interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1), the record indicates a series
of home visits by supervisors of Respondent to the homes of employees. The crucial
time in this aspect of the case is the period between the direction of election on
June 20 and the election on July 15.
Veazie testified to interrogation by Moorse on the day before the election. Abra-
ham Allen testified to a conversation with Valentine a week before the election in
which Valentine said they had enough applications to hire more men and let the em-
ployees go if they voted the Union in. McKinley Allen testified that about a week
before the election he, Smith, and Dozier were approached by Valentine who said
the workweek would be reduced if the Union went through. Lavergne testified that
about a week before the election Valentine threatened to cut the hours to 40; he also
testified that the day before the election King told him that a "no" vote meant a raise
and a "yes" vote meant a strike.
Abiatha Scott, thoroughly credible in my judgment, testified that during the week
preceding the election Valentine interrogated him as recounted above and informed
him that the white applicants were sufficient in numbed to replace the boys in the
event of a strike. He also testified.,to interrogation by Coleman in the week before
the election and that King at that time told him that a "yes" vote meant a strike and
a "no" vote meant a raise.
Roberson testified that. Moore interrogated him concerning union affairs in the
week before the ele'dd`. n. Smith, whom I believe, testified to interrogation by Moore
approximately^`r V eks before the election , further stating that the conversation
at that time7included the statement by Moore that a vote for the Company was a
vote for a raise and a vote for the Union was a vote for a strike. He also testified to
a conversation with Valeit`ine 1 week later in which Valentine repeated the statement
concerning the effect of a vote for the Union as against a vote for the Company.
Gregory testified to interrogation by King a week before the election. Seypion I
found credible; he testified that in the week before the election Valentine asked his
opinion of the Union and repeated the statement that a vote for the Union was a vote
for a strike and a vote against the Union was a vote for a raise. He also testified that
Valentine visited his home approximately a week before the election accompanied
by Coleman, and that on that occasion he also stated that a Union vote was one for
a strike and a company vote was a vote for a raise. He also testified that the day
before the election he had a talk with Moore who showed him a ballot marked with
an x in the "No" column. According to his testimony King interrogated him a week
before the election about the Union.
Thomas credibly testified that about 3 days before the election Moore approached
him and asked him what he knew if anything about the Union and whether any of
"the guys" ever came to him about the Union. Gaines testified that about a week
before the election Moore and King called on him at his home and stated the
Company's opposition to the Union and urged Gaines to think carefully about his
decision. West testified that a few days before the election Moore asked him if he
knew anything about the Union and if any of the other guys had told him anything
about it and finally which way he was going to vote. He also testified that a few
days before the election Valentine approached him with a sample ballot and told
him that a "no" vote meant a raise and a "yes" vote meant a strike. He also testi-
fied that a few days before the election Valentine and Coleman came to his home,
'6I do not regard the specification of the 72-hour period as delimiting consideration of
matters occurring in the preelection period before July 12 and after June 20, 1960.
International Shoe Company , 123 NLRB 682.
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stated that the election was a serious matter, and they wanted him to vote against the
Union. Valentine at that time told his wife that a union victory would cause suffer-
ing for the family.
Thibeaux testified to a conversation with Moore 2 days before the election in which
Moore asked him if he was still for the Company and then stated that a vote one
way was a vote for a raise and a vote the other way was a vote for a strike. He also
testified as recounted above that Valentine interrogated him as to the leaders of the
union activity during the week of the election and that on'the evening before the
election Valentine told him that a union vote was a strike vote and a vote against
the Union was a vote for a raise. At that time he showed him a sample ballot
marked with an X in the "no" zone.
Valentine testified that he made several visits to the homes of employees in the
company of Coleman and had conversations with employees at work about the
Union but that such visits and talks occurred prior to June 1960. He did concede
that he showed Lavergne and others a sample ballot but asserted that it was un-
marked and that he did not show or ask them how to vote.
Moore testified that on one evening in May he accompanied King in visiting homes
of employees. He also testified to showing a sample ballot 3 or 4 days before the
election to Veazie but assertedfit was unmarked and that while he urged employees
to vote "no," no threats were made. He conceded conversations concerning union
activities with employees and testified they took place sometime in May or the
early part of June.
King testified to a conversation with Veazie but placed it as having occurred in
April. He conceded that a week before the election he showed employees an
unmarked ballot. He testified to home visits with Moore and Coleman, but placed
them as having occurred well before June. Coleman testified that any calls upon
employees at their homes were made before June 1960; I do not credit him in this
regard. He frankly conceded that he used everything in his power to keep the Union
out but denied instructing supervisors to show employees how to vote.
The account of the acts and declarations of Moore, King, and Valentine in the
period June 20 to July 15 as given by the General Counsel's witnesses appears to
me to be more credible. Those witnesses who particularly impressed me as credible
I have indicated above. On my appraisal of the witnesses and their testimony the
overwhelming weight of the evidence sustains this objection to the conduct of the
election.
Objection No. 8 asserts that the July 12 advertisement in the Port Arthur News
interfered with a- free election . The advertisement in question is in evidence as
General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3. There is no serious conflict of testimony concern-
ing it. Its appearance in the newspaper of July 12 produced some, 100 applicants
who filled out forms on the dock in full sight of the existing employee complement.
The majority of warehouse and driver employees were Negro. Coleman testified
that he had been planning on expansions at that particular time and that a rumor
was circulating that a picket line would be put around the warehouse.
I find that the advertisement was placed in the paper at the particular time it was
for the specific purpose of demonstrating to employees that they could be easily
replaced in their jobs. Although I found Coleman credible, his general observa-
tions about plans for expansion do not add up to a satisfactory explanation for the
placing of the, advertisement at the particular time much less account for the
unprecedented specification that white applicants were desired. See International
Shoe Company, supra. - Particularly in the light of the abundant instances of anti-
union feeling on the part of management and its communication to employees I
find that the intended and, indeed , the necessary effect of Respondent 's action in
this regard was actually to create a reign of terror among employees thereby inter-
fering with their free choice in the election.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic , and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of my finding of unfair labor practices I shall recommend that Respond-
ent cease and desist therefrom and take such affirmative action as in my judgment
is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the variety of acts of
interference I have 'found to have been committed, I shall recommend that the cease
1
AMERICAN FEED COMPANY 481
and desist order extend to a prohibition against interference in any manner with
rights guaranteed under the Act. I shall recommend that the July 1960 election be.
set aside and another be conducted at such time as may appropriately be done.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Employer is engaged in commerce within Section 2(6) and (7) of_
the Act, and assertion of the Boards' jurisdiction is warranted.
2. By interrogating employees concerning union membership and activities, by
threats of adverse consequences in the event the Union secured representation rights,,
and by the promise of benefits for employees if they rejected the Union, Respondent-
has engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion of employees' rights under the -
Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent did not engage in an unfair labor practice within the scope of-
Section 8(a)(3) by its action in discharging Ezekiel Thibeaux nor did it engage in
conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its wage increase in September
1960, nor by any threat to refuse to sign a contract with the Union.
5. Respondent has engaged in conduct interfering with employees' right to a free;
election, thus affecting the results of the July 15, 1960, election.
[Recommendations omitted from publication. I
Mary Feifer, d/b/a American Feed Company and Arthur Faison,
Miguel Berrios , Benito Aponte , Silverio Ramos , Manuel Lopez
Ortiz, Isaac Lopez , and Herberto Rivera and Merchandising
and Distribution Employees Union Local 210, International'
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and.
Helpers of America, Ind., Party to the Contract
Merchandising and Distribution Employees Union Local 210,.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Ind. and Benito Aponte,
Arthur Faison , Miguel Berrios, Silverio Ramos, Manuel Lopez
Ortiz, Isaac Lopez, and Herberto Rivera and Mary Feifer,,
d/b/a American Feed Company, Party to the Contract. Cases
Nos. 2-CA-7594, 2-CA-7594-2, 2-CA-7594-3, 2-CA-7654-1, 2-CA-
7654-2, 2-CA-7654-3, 2-CA-7654-4, 2-CB-3013, 2-CB-3017-1,,
2-CB-3017-2, 2-CB-3020-1, 2-CB-30920-2, 2-CB-3020-3, and,-
2-CB-3020-4. November 20, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 16, 1961, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his..
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that,
the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged.
in the consolidated complaint and recommending that the complaint
be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
134 NLRB No. 49.
630849-62-vol. 134-32