Chicago Pottery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1247 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

CHICAGO POTTERY COMPANY 1247
that the Respondent be ordered (1) to cease and desist from engaging in the conduct
found above; (2) to offer Eric Mueller and the above-named strikers immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, discharging, if necessary,
any replacements in order to provide work for the strikers; and (3) to make whole
Eric Mueller and the strikers for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them, by payment of each of a sum of money
equal to that which each normally would have earned as wages from the date of
Eric Mueller's discharge, April 25, 1960, and from the date of the strikers' uncondi-
tional request for reinstatement, May 3, 1960, to the date of their reinstatement or
Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during such period,
to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294.
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. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
and Amalgamated Local Union 355 are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The strike, which commenced April 20, 1960, was caused and prolonged by
the Respondent's unfair labor practices.
4. By discriminating against Eric Mueller in regard to his hire and tenure of em-
ployment, thereby discouraging membership in the International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and encouraging membership
in Amalgamated Local Union 355, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. By refusing to reinstate the six unfair labor practice strikers, upon their uncon-
ditional request, the Respondent has discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging the employees from engaging in concerted
activities and membership in and activities on behalf of International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and encouraging membership in
Amalgamated Local Union 355, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their
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.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Respondent has not required applicants for employment to apply for
membership in Amalgamated Local Union 355, as a condition of employment, in
violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Chicago Pottery Company and United Industrial Workers of
America, Amalgamated Local No. 286. Case No. 13-RC-7931.
April 23, 1962
DECISION ON REVIEW
On August 21, 1961, the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-
entitled proceeding. Thereafter, the Intervenor, International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, and its Local 1188, in accordance With
Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations as amended, filed
with the Board a timely request for review of the Regional Director's
136 NLRB No. 122.
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 130ARD
Decision and Direction of Election, urging that the petition herein
should be dismissed because Petitioner's president had been convicted
of violating Section 302(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act
of 1947.
The Board has', considered the record and the request for review.
For the reasons set forth in Alto Plastics Manufacturing Corporation,
136 NLRB 850, which presents a virtually identical issue, the Board
hereby affirms the regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election.
Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director
for further proceedings consistent with this Decision.
Sunbeam Lighting Company , Inc. and Richard J. Reynolds.
Case No. 13-CA-3717. April 23, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 14, 1960, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, as set forth in
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, a supporting brief, and
a request for oral argument.' The General Counsel also filed a brief
in support of the Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
1 As the record , including the exceptions and briefs, adequately sets forth the issues and
the positions of the parties , the request for oral argument is hereby denied.
a The Respondent excepted to the Trial Examiner ' s rulings denying Respondent's pre-
liminary motions for a bill of particulars and written interrogatories . In addition, Re-
spondent contends that by virtue of various of the Trial Examiner ' s rulings and by certain
specified conduct engaged in by the Trial Examiner during the hearing, the Respondent
was deprived of its right to a fair hearing. We find no merit in these exceptions. As to
the motion for a bill of particulars , it appears that the complaint sufficiently specified
the conduct which was alleged to be violative of the Act and that during the hearing
Respondent was fully aware and advised of the General Counsel's contentions. See
N.L.R.B . v. Empress Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426, 431-432 (1941 ). Similarly, the
motion for written interrogatories appears to have been sought merely to make more
specific that which was already clear and sufficiently well pleaded in the complaint. Of.
Kiekhaefer Corporation , 127 NLRB 1381 , footnote 1. As to the contention that Respondent
was denied a fair hearing , we are satisfied , upon our scrutiny of the entire record, that
the Trial Examiner's desire not to have the hearing unduly prolonged and his rulings con-
fining the Respondent 's presentation of evidence to the matters in issue did not prejudice
Respondent' s position on the record or constitute a denial of due process . See Liberty
Coach Company, Inc., 128 NLRB 160 . Finally , Respondent assigns as error the Trial
Examiner ' s refusal to allow the Respondent the opportunity to elicit testimony as to cer-
tain striker misconduct which would allegedly have disqualified them for reinstatement,
136 NLRB No. 107.