F. Bennett Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1960

129 N.L.R.B. 506 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. Bennett Manufacturing Co., Inc. and Seafarers International
Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District , Marine
Allied Workers Division , AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA-7035.
October 31, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 6,1960, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report with a supporting brief.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifications set
forth below.
1. We find in agreement with the Trial Examiner and for the
reasons fully set forth in the Intermediate Report that the Respondent
discriminatorily discharged employees Booker T. Washington and
Aaron Harvin in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act
because of its antipathy toward the Union and its belief that Wash-
ington and Harvin had voted for the Union in the election conducted
by the Board.2
Like the Trial Examiner, we find no merit in Respondent's conten-
tion that 1-Iarvin was discharged because there was no work for him.
The Trial Examiner apparently did not credit the testimony of Floyd
M. Bennett, Jr., Respondent's president, that an unexpected cancella-
tion of an order on which Harvin was then working prompted his
discharge. Moreover, we are persuaded that such cancellation, even
if it had in fact occurred, was not the true cause of the discharge.
Thus, as the Trial Examiner found, the Respondent did not inform
Harvin that he was being discharged because of the cancellation of
an order. That fact together with the abrupt discharge of both Harvin
and Washington immediately after the election and Bennett's con-
'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 Leedom and
Members Rodgers and Jenkins]
2 The Trial Examiner incorrectly states that Respondent ' s President Bennett stated to
the employees before the election that all the Union was interested in was their money.
We find that the remark was actually made immediately after the election while Bennett
was in the process of discharging Washington and Harvin.
129 NLRB No. 62.
F. BENNETT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 507
temporaneous statement that the employees would have to give up
the Union if they ever wanted to work for the Respondent again,'
compels the conclusion that the discharge of Harvin, as well as Wash-
ington, was discriminatorily motivated.
Although the Respondent denied that it had discharged Wash-
ington, and contended that Washington's leaving was probably due
to a misunderstanding, it nevertheless contends further that it sought
to have Washington return to his job and since it had made an offer
of reinstatement, which Washintgon refused, it is not to be held liable
for any loss of earnings suffered by Washington. We find no merit
in the Respondent's contention. The evidence establishes that the
Respondent merely invited Washington to discuss the matter of his
return to work. Indeed, the Respondent admits as much, for after
Washington had left the premises on November 6, that evening
Bennett left a note in Washington's car asking Washington to come
in and "talk" with him.' At no time did Washington, whose testimony
the Trial Examiner credited, understand that the Respondent was
offering anything more than an invitation to discuss the question of
his return to work. In the circumstances, we find that the Respondent
did not make an offer of reinstatement.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent in viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act unlawfully refused to
bargain with the Union on and after November 6, 1959. As set forth
more fully in the Intermediate Report, Union Organizer Cross asked
Bennett to sit down and bargain with him as soon as the results of
the election were announced. Bennett refused, stating that he was
not going to bargain with the Union "now, next week, or any other
time." No further demand was made on the Respondent until after
the Union's certification on November 17, 1959. On November 20,
the Union again requested recognition and the right to sit down and
bargain with the Respondent. However, the Respondent adhered to
its announced intention and again refused to meet with the Union.
Subsequent demands to meet and bargain were made by the Union
in January 1960. These demands were met by the Respondent's
either asking the Union for delays or for a copy of its proposed con-
tract. At no time, however, did the Respondent manifest a willingness
to meet and bargain with the Union. In view of such conduct, we
find that the Respondent made it unequivocally clear to the Union,
8 The Respondent asserts that Bennett denied at the hearing the making of such a state-
ment and that the Trial Examiner's finding to the contrary is in error. The testimony
in the record to which the Respondent adverts by no means clearly supports its position.
Even if this testimony is construed as a denial, in view of Washington's specific testi-
mony that such a condition was attached and the Trial Examiner's refusal to credit
Bennett's testimony where contradicted, we find that the statement in question was made
by Bennett at the time of the discharges.
,'The Trial Examiner mistakenly finds that the note was left in Washington' s car on
Saturday rather than on Friday, the day Washington was discharged.
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as it had originally expressed itself on November 6, that it had no
intention of ever bargaining with the Union. In such circumstances,
we find that the Respondent refused to bargain with the Union on
and after November 6, 1959, in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1)
of the Act.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, F. Bennett Manu-
facturing Co., Inc., Brooklyn, New York, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Seafarers International Union
of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, Marine Allied Work-
ers Division, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees because
of their union membership or activities, or in any other manner dis-
criminating against them in regard to their tenure of employment or
any terms or conditions of employment.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Seafarers International
Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, Marine Allied
Workers Division, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
production and maintenance employees at its Brooklyn, New York,
plants, including shipping employees, but excluding office clericals,
guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
join or become members of Seafarers International Union of North
America, Atlantic and Gulf District, Marine Allied Workers Division,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in union
or concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Seafarers Interna-
tional Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, Marine
Allied Workers Division, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
5 Cf. Old Town Shoe Company, 91 NLRB 240.
F. BENNETT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 509
of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of em-
ployment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such an under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Offer to Booker T. Washington and Aaron Harvin immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make each of them whole in the manner set forth
in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy" for
any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against him.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plants in Brooklyn, New York, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after
being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notice is not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
6In 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."
APPENDIX
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 discourage membership in Seafarers Interna-
tional Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District,
Marine Allied Workers Division, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization of our employees, by discriminatorily discharging
any of our employees because of their union membership or ac-
tivities, or in any other manner discriminating against them in
regard to their tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist Sea-
farers International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf
District, Marine Allied Workers Division, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivity for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
^closure Act of 1959.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Seafarers In-
ternational Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District,
Marine Allied Workers Division, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate unit described
below, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, we will embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at our Brook-
lyn, New York, plants, including shipping employees, but
excluding office clericals, guards, watchmen, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL offer to Booker T. Washington and Aaron Harvin im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed and will make each of
them whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination against him.
F. BENNETT MANUFACTURING CO., 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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed November 19 , 1959, by Seafarers International Union of
North America, Atlantic and Gulf District , Marine Allied Workers Division,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor
F. BENNETT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 511
Relations Board, hereinafter called the General Counsel I and the Board, respectively,
by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, New York), issued
its complaint dated December 31, 1959, against F. Bennett Manufacturing Co., Inc.,
hereinafter referred to as the Respondent. The complaint alleged in substance that
the Respondent: (1) Discriminatorily terminated the employment of Booker T.
Washington and Aaron Harvin on or about November 6, 1959, because each of them
engaged in union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act; and (2) on or
about November 6, 1959, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the Respondent's production
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, the charge, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Re-
spondent and the Union.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but
denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 28, 1960, in New York, New
York, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were represented at
the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, to present oral argument at the close of the
hearing, and thereafter to file briefs as well as proposed findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law. Both parties made an oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing
but neither has filed a brief herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, Respondent admitted , and the Trial Examiner finds that
F. Bennett Manufacturing Co., Inc., is, and has been, at all times herein mentioned,
a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
New York. At all times herein mentioned , the Respondent has maintained its
principal office and place of business at 154 Conover Street and at 189 Conover
Street in the Borough of Brooklyn, city and State of New York, herein called its
Brooklyn plants , and is now and has been continuously engaged at said plants and
places of business in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of wooden instrument
pieces and boxes of related products . During the past year , the Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations , caused to be manufactured , sold, and
distributed at its Brooklyn plants products valued at in excess of $80 , 000, of which
products valued in excess of $50,000 were furnished to various enterprises , including,
inter alia, View Lex Corp. and Rochester Ordnance District , each of which enterprises
annually produces , handles, and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 out of the
State wherein each of said enterprises is located.
The Respondent admits, and the Trial Examiner finds , that at all times material
herein the Respondent has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District,
Marine Allied Workers Division , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
The Respondent's production staff consisted of four employees. Employees Booker
T. Washington and Aaron Harvin worked at Respondent's plant located at 154
Conover Street, Brooklyn, while employees Gonsalez and George Mosely apparently
worked at the plant located at 189 Conover Street which also contained Respondent's
offices. Washington had worked steadily for the Respondent since October or
November 1957, while Harvin had been employed by Respondent since August 1959.
On or about October 21, 1959,2 SIU Organizers Ralph Quinnonez and Malcolm
Cross talked to and secured signed authorization cards from employees Washington
and Gonsalez. The following morning the organizers approached employee Harvin
at the plant at 189 Conover Street where he also signed an applica tion card. While
the organizers were still chatting with Washington and Harvin, Respondent's
'This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the
hearing
2 All dates are in the year la59 unless otherwise specified.
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
president , Floyd M . Bennett , Jr., drove up and upon learning who the organizers
were emphatically ordered them out of the building. Thereupon the organizers re-
tired to the sidewalk outside the building , waited for Bennett, and informed him
that they represented a majority of his employees and requested him to negotiate a
contract . Bennett stated that he wanted to have nothing to do with the Union.
Subsequently , however, a consent election was agreed to which was held on
November 6 and won by the Union by a vote of three to one. Prior to the date
of the election Bennett had told employees Washington and Harvin that all the
Union wanted was some money from the employees or from the Respondent so that
the employees should vote against the Union in the election in order "to get rid of
the bums."
After the ballots had been counted and the results announced , Organizer Cross
suggested to Bennett that they sit down and negotiate a contract . Bennett refused
with the statement that he was not going to negotiate "now, next week , or any other
time." At this point the Board agent who conducted the election stated that Bennett
need not negotiate with the Union until a certification of the Union had been received
from the Board.3
As soon as the election had been completed and the strangers at the plant had
departed , Bennett called employees Washington and Harvin into the office , ordered
them to lock up the other plant and bring the keys to him, and he would pay them off.
The men did as they were ordered and were given their final pay about 1:45 p.m.,
prior to the regular closing time and pay period. While completing these financial
arrangements , Bennett informed the men that if they ever wanted to work for the
Respondent again they would have to give up the Union. He further informed
Washington that if Washington wanted to work for Respondent any more, he should
come and talk to Bennett about work the following day, Saturday.
When Washington did not appear for the interview on Saturday , Bennett left a
note in Washington 's car which was parked close to the Respondent 's plant asking
Washington to come down and talk with him. When Washington did not appear
on Monday , Bennett sent a fellow employee to ask Washington to come in and see
him but Washington answered that he had been discharged . The following day
Bennett telephoned Washington again asking him to come to the plant and perhaps
Washington could go back to work. Washington still failed to appear at the plant.
Some days later Respondent hired another employee.
On November 17 the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative
for the Respondent 's production and maintenance employees . On November 20,
the Union requested recognition and the right to sit down and bargain with Bennett
both by telephone and by letter . Bennett continued to refuse to sit down and nego-
tiate with the Union.
On January 5, 12, and 19, 1960, Organizer Quinnonez telephoned Bennett request-
ing a negotiation conference . On the first two occasions Bennett requested delays
and on the last occasion requested the Union to send him a copy of its contract
but refused to sit down at the negotiation table with the Union.
B. Conclusions
1. The discharges
The facts of the discharges of Washington and Harvin immediately following the
disclosure that the Union had won the election by a three to one vote together with
Bennett's suspicion , if not knowledge , that these two employees had voted in favor
of the Union creates at least a prima facie case that Bennett discharged these two
employees because he suspected , or knew, that they favored the Union and that
they were discriminatorily discharged because thereof in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1 ) of the Act. This was confirmed by Bennett 's statement that, if the em-
ployees ever worked for Respondent again, they would have to give up the Union.
At the hearing Bennett maintained that Harvin , at least , had been discharged because
about 10 a . m. of the very morning of the election he (Bennett ) had received a tele-
phone call postponing or canceling an order on which Harvin had been working so that
there was no work for Harvin thereafter . Respondent presented no written evidence of
any such postponement or cancellation and acknowledged that there was no written
proof thereof in existence . Nor did any alleged customer testify that any such con-
tract had been postponed or canceled . Nor, in fact, did Bennett make any mention of
any such cancellation or postponement on the day of the election or for a long period
of time thereafter . In fact, if there had been any such cancellation or postponement
3 This legal advice seems somewhat doubtful.
F. BENNETT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 513
which would have forced Respondent to dispense with the services of Harvin, it ap-
pears only reasonable that Bennett would have so informed Harvin before or, at least,
at the time of his discharge thereafter. This he did not do. Under all these circum-
stances the Trial Examiner is unable to accept this uncorroborated evidence of this so-
called postponement or cancellation on the very morning of the election. This seems
too fortuitous to have been factual, especially is this so in view of the Respondent's
hurried attempts to reinstate Washington the very next day on condition of renounc-
ing the Union and the hiring of another man shortly thereafter.
The undenied condition which Respondent attached to any possible reinstatement
of Washington and Harvin, i.e., the abandonment of the Union, makes it quite clear
that the discharge of Washington and Harvin was caused by the Respondent's antip-
athy to unions and not by any loss of business.
Consequently the Trial Examiner must conclude that the Respondent discharged
Washington and Harvin because of their membership in the Union and because Re-
spondent suspected them of having voted for the Union and, thus, constitutes a viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner so finds.
2. The refusal to bargain
In view of the certification of the Union on November 17, 1959, as the exclusive
representative of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit of production
employees resulting from the 3-to-1 vote at the consent election, Respondent had to
admit that the Union was the certified bargaining representative of its employees
in the appropriate unit.
The evidence is equally conclusive that both before and after the official certifica-
tion of November 17, the Respondent refused and continued to refuse to sit down and
bargain with the Union as such representative in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1)
of the Act.
At the hearing and during oral argument Bennett stated, repeated, and then re-
iterated that the Respondent had "always" been willing to negotiate with the Union
and claimed that the failure of the parties to have ever sat down at the negotiation
table was caused by the fact that the Union did not want to do the things as he wanted
it done. The facts at the very least disprove this claim of the Respondent. It is true
that Bennett asked for and was refused a copy of a union contract but it is also true
in that same conversation the Respondent refused to sit down at the bargaining table
with the Union.
Therefore the Trial Examiner must find that on and after November 6, 1959, the
Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the certified repre-
sentative of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit in violation of
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection 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 tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Booker T. Washington and Aaron Harvin by discharging
each of them on November 6, 1959, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Re-
spondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of
said discrimination against him by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination
against him to the date of the offer of reinstatement in accordance with the formula
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
It having also been found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having
been found that on November 6, 1959, and thereafter, the Respondent refused to bar-
gain collectively with Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic
and Gulf District, Marine Allied Workers Division, AFL-CIO, as the certified ex-
586439-61-vol. 129 -34
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clusive bargaining representative of the employees of the Respondent in the appro-
priate unit of production and maintenance employees , it will be recommended that
the Respondent , upon request , bargain collectively with said Union as such
representative.
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner , the unfair labor practices committed by the
Respondent in the instant case are such as to indicate an attitude of opposition to the
purposes of the Act generally. In order, therefore , to make effective the interdepend-
ent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife which
burdens and obstructs commerce , and to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District,
Marine Allied Workers Division, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discharging Booker T. Washington and Aaron Harvin, thus discriminating
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment because each of them became a
member of the Union and engaged in union activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing on, and at all times after , November 6, 1959, to bargain
collectively with Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf
District, Marine Allied Workers Division, AFL-CIO, as the certified exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is
now engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
4. 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 engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. 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.]
National Welders Supply Company , Inc.' and International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 465, AFL-CIO , Petitioner.
Case No. 11-RC-1354. October 31, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition. duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerold B. Sindler, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
1 The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
129 NLRB No. 58.