Glaziers, Glassworkers, Etc., Local Union 1778

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 702 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of Irvins 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
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in an unfair labor practice
in violation of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take . certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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. Irvins, Inc., Baltimore , Maryland , is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Retail Store Employees ' Union , Local No . 692, Retail Clerks International
Association , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By picketing the four retail stores of Irvins, Inc., located in Baltimore, Mary-
land, from August 26, 1960 , until enjoined by the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland on October 3, 1960, with an object of forcing or requiring
Irvins, Inc., to recognize it or bargain with it as the collective -bargaining representa-
tive of the employees of Irvins , Inc., or forcing or requiring the employees of Irvins,
Inc., to accept or select it as their collective -bargaining representative , although it
had not been currently certified as the collective -bargaining representative of such
employees , and a valid election under Section 9 (c) of the Act had been held within
the preceding 12 months , Retail Store Employees ' Union , Local No. 692, Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO , engaged in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (B ) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Glaziers, Glassworkers & Glass Warehouse Workers Local
Union No. 1778, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and
Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO [Dixie Glass Co., Inc.]
and Fred Hunt . Case No. 923-CB-376. November 04, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1961, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his
Intermediate 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 Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its power in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Rodgers and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
134 NLRB No. 71.
GLAZIERS, GLASSWORKERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 1778 703
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, as set forth in the Intermediate Report. How-
ever, we rely also on the fact that the evidence sustains the finding, and
we hereby find, that the Union knew of, and acquiesced in, the Com-
pany's settled practice of conditioning continued employment upon
membership in good standing in the Respondent Union. In this total
context, therefore, Respondent's notification to the Company that Hunt
had been suspended from membership clearly caused Hunt's discharge
and was violative of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this 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, Glaziers, Glass-
workers & Glass Warehouse Workers Local Union No. 1778, Brother-
hood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-
CIO, Houston, Texas, its officers, representatives, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Dixie Glass Co., Inc., of Hous-
ton, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate
against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make Fred Hunt whole for any loss of pay he may have suf-
fered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Post in Respondent's office or union hall in Houston, Texas,
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-
third Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official representa-
tive of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to members of Respondent are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
IIn 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."
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region
signed copies of the notice, for posting, the Company willing, for a
period of 60 days on its bulletin boards where notices to its employees
are customarily posted.
(d) 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.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF
DIxIE GLASS Co., INC.
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 cause or attempt to cause Dixie Glass Co., Inc., of
Houston, Texas, to discriminate against employees in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
of Dixie Glass Co., Inc., of Houston, Texas, in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL make whole Fred Hunt for any loss of pay he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against
him.
GLAZIERS, GLASSWORKERS & GLASS WARE-
HOUSE WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1778,
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS
AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL-
CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 clays 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, duly filed, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, for the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region (Houston, Texas),
issued a complaint against Glaziers, Glassworkers & Glass Warehouse Workers
Local Union No. 1778, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or the Union, alleging that the
GLAZIERS , GLASSWORKERS , ETC., LOCAL UNION 1778 705
Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner
at Houston, Texas, on June 14 and 15, 1961. All parties were represented by coun-
sel and were afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to file briefs.
Briefs were submitted by the General Counsel and the Respondent and they
have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my
observation of the witnesses , I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Dixie Glass Co., Inc., of Houston, Texas, herein called the Company or the
Employer,' is a Texas corporation with its principal office and place of business
located in Houston, Texas, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, distribu-
tion , and installation of glass and glass products . During the 12-month period pre-
ceding the filing of the charge herein the Company purchased and received products
valued in excess of $50,000 from points and places located outside the State of
Texas.
It is conceded , and I find , that the Company is and has been engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Glaziers, Glassworkers & Glass Warehouse Workers Local Union No. 1778,
Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue
The issue in this case is whether the Respondent Union engaged in an unfair labor
practice by causing or attempting to cause Dixie Glass Co., Inc., of Houston, Texas,
to discriminatorily discharge employee Fred Hunt in violation of Section 8(b)(2)
and (1) (A) of the Act for the reason that Hunt had been suspended from the Union
for failing to pay a $500 fine.2
B. The facts
Fred Hunt, a journeyman glazier, had been a member of the Union since the
latter part of 1952. During approximately the same period he worked for various
employers in the Houston area, including the Employer here involved. His last
employment at the Dixie Glass Co., Inc., of Houston, Texas, involved a glass in-
stallation job for the Phillips Refinery at a construction site located at Old Ocean,
Texas, which is some 50 miles from Houston. Hunt had worked on this job for
about 3 weeks before the termination of his employment on March 6, 1961, the
circumstances of which are here at issue.
It is undisputed that in February 1961, the specific date of which the record does
not disclose, Hunt was fined $500 by the Union for working on a job during a period
when the Union was engaged in a strike and that he refused to pay the fine which
was thus imposed upon him. On March 3, a Friday, Hunt was given expense money
for the following week and was advised by the company foreman that he would be
expected to work over the weekend of March 4 and 5 at the Old Ocean job. At the
end of the workday on March 3 Hunt returned to Houston where on that evening
he joined about nine other glazier employees who were having beer at a restaurant.
Hunt testified that he learned from his discussion with these employees that he had
been suspended from the Union for failing to pay his fine It is undisputed that
Hunt failed to report to work at the Phillips Refinery job on the following Saturday
'The Company's name appears as amended at the hearing
2While the record indicates that the Company had a working agreement with the
Respondent Union, there is no contention that it provided for a union shop The contract
was not introduced in evidence In any event, the matter of whether or not a union-
security agreement existed between the parties is immaterial to the issue in this case
630849-62-vol. 134-46
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Sunday as he had been instructed to do. Hunt testified that his reason for not
reporting to work over the weekend was because he knew that in view of his sus-
pension it would not be of "any use" and that he would have difficulty with E. P.
South, business representative of the Respondent Union, if he attempted to work on
the job. 'In any event, according to Hunt, he decided to wait until the following
Monday to see what would happen.
Hunt testified that about 8:30 on Sunday evening (March 5), while visiting at the
home of a girl friend, he received a telephone call from John Silva, the glazing fore-
man of the Company, who told him that he "wouldn't be going to Old Ocean
Monday morning" because "he had another man going down in my place." Hunt
testified that he thereupon told Silva that he "understood" that he had been sus-
pended, but that Silva replied, "Well, I don't know about that." Hunt said that after
this conversation he called the financial secretary of the Union, one, Wick, and
Wick confirmed the fact that he had been suspended from the Union. Hunt testified
that during this conversation he also advised Wick that he had not received any
written notice of his suspension, Wick's reply being that according to "the book" no
written notice was required.
On the following Monday morning Hunt went to the Company's office in Houston
for the purpose of returning the expense money which had been advanced to him.
There he spoke to Silva and T. D. Plummer, the latter being the Company's ware-
house and glazing superintendent whose authority was over that of Silva's. Hunt
testified that on this occasion he merely stated to Silva and Plummer that, "Well, I
guess I don't work today. I understand that I am suspended," and that Plummer
replied, "Well, I guess so, I just talked to Mr. South. In fact, South called me about
7:00 o'clock this morning." Nothing further was said and Hunt departed.
Approximately 3 weeks later, which would be about March 27, Hunt received the
following telegram 3 which was addressed to him:
Glaziers Local Union 1778 denies charges filed by Fred Hunt. Glaziers Local
has no objection to employment of Fred Hunt if Company so desires.
E. P. SouTll.
Upon receiving the above telegram Hunt went to the Company and this time spoke
to George W. See, the production manager.4 Hunt testified without contradiction
that when he showed the telegram to See, See stated that he had received one "just
like it" and that See thereupon took the telegram which he had received from his
pocket and displayed it to him. Hunt credibly testified that when he then asked
See what the telegram meant, See replied, "Well, I don't know. It looks like South
is trying to get off the hook. I don't know what is going on but why don't you call
South and tell him to give you a card so you will be able to go back to work?" 5 It
is undisputed that Hunt was not reemployed at this time and it appears from the
record that he had not returned to work for the Company as of the time of the
hearing.
We turn now to a consideration of testimony by company and union witnesses
concerning the issue of Hunt's termination.
Foreman John Silva testified that at 7 a.m. on Monday, March 6, Business Agent
E. P. South called him at the Company's office. Concerning this conversation, Silva
testified, "He called me and told me that Fred Hunt was suspended and I said, 'O.K.' "
Continuing, Silva said that immediately following this conversation he telephoned
Hunt 6 and asked Hunt if he knew that he was suspended from the Union. According
to Silva, Hunt replied in the affirmative and he thereupon told Hunt not to report to
the job at Old Ocean that morning. A few minutes later Silva replaced Hunt by
calling one Reuben, an apprentice employee, and advising him to report to the Old
Ocean job. Silva said he did not call Hunt on Sunday evening, as Hunt testified.
8 The telegram, Respondent's Exhibit No 1, is undated
4 The supervisory status of See as production manager is over that of Plummer and
Silva
5 Hunt testified that his return to the Company on this occasion was a social visit and
that he did not ask See or any other supervisor for employment In explaining the reason
for his not seeking work on this occasion, Hunt testified, "Because I knowed in my own
mind the rules and regulations of the Union, that you cannot go to work for a union
shop, a union contractor, without a card, without a union card "
It was the practice of the employees to leave with the Company telephone numbers
where they could be reached Silva testified that he called the first of two numbers which
he had for Hunt, that he did not know the listing of, the number which he called on this
occasion.
GLAZIERS, GLASSWORKERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 1778 707
T. D. Plummer, the superintendent, testified that he also received a telephone call
from South on Monday morning, this about 7:30 a in., which would be one-half hour
after the call which Silva said he received from South. Plummer said his conversa-
tion with South was "pretty much one sided." Thus, Plummer testified that South
first asked if Hunt had "showed up yet" and that he replied that he had not. Plummer
testified that South then told him that Hunt had been suspended as of the preceding
Saturday and that he (Hunt) could not work as a union glazier. It is undisputed,
however, that Plummer took no action against Hunt as a result of this call.
E. P. South, when called by the Respondent, denied that he called either Silva or
Plummer on the Monday morning in question. Upon my observation of the wit-
nesses, and upon all the testimony in this case, I credit the testimony of Silva and
Plummer over that of South and South's denial of having made the telephone calls
as testified to by the latter supervisors not credited?
C. Additional facts; conclusions
A most puzzling aspect of this case is the variance in the testimony between Hunt
and Foreman Silva as to when Hunt was called and notified not to report to work on
Monday morning. While Hunt testified that he received the can from Silva on Sun-
day evening, Silva testified that he did not make the call until Monday morning. Al-
though I am duly cognizant of the fact that both Hunt and Silva were called as Gen-
eral Counsel witnesses, I am impelled to conclude upon a careful consideration of the
entire record and all the evidence proffered that this variance in testimony between
two General Counsel witnesses is not in itself fatal to the General Counsel's case.
The fact of the matter is that I am convinced that E..P. South called Silva early
Monday morning in the manner as testified to by Silva and that Silva responded to
that call by replacing Hunt with another employee. Having previously credited
Silva's testimony to this effect, I would at this point add that Silva impressed me as
an honest witness who gave frank and forthright answers to all questions put to him.
Moreover, Silva had been a member in good standing of the Respondent Union for
the last 11 or 12 years. He remained a member in good standing at the time of the
hearing. Indeed, not only was there no showing of any bias or prejudice on the part
of Silva, but in a sense it might be said that as a union member his testimony was
against the interest of the Respondent Union and that as a foreman his testimony
was against the interest of his employer .8 I am convinced that Silva was telling the
truth as to the facts as they occurred.
Pointing to the fact that Hunt did not report to work over the weekend as he had
been instructed, Respondent urges that Hunt voluntarily failed to show up for work
on Monday. Although this argument is rejected in view of the findings above, I
credit Silva's testimony to the further effect that Hunt's not reporting to work on
Saturday and Sunday had no bearing on his decision to replace Hunt on Monday.
To the contrary, in explaining why he had replaced Hunt, Silva testified that only
union members have worked for the Company 9 as outside glaziers during the pe-
riod he had been a foreman, and that "it's been a practice that when a member goes
suspended he is not supposed to work." ie
Respondent advances the further contention that Silva did not have authority to
discharge employees and that Silva therefore could not terminate Hunt. This argu-
ment also must be rejected. True, Silva testified that he had authority only to recom-
mend a discharge to Plummer and that he and Plummer would discuss the matter
before discharging an employee. However, Silva also testified that he does have
T South testified that he first learned of Hunt's suspension on Saturday evening
(March 4) He testified further that on the same evening he told George Summers, a
glazier who had been working on the Old Ocean job with Hunt, that Hunt had been sus-
pended. Conceding that lie made a trip to the Old Ocean job on the following Monday
morning, South testified that he did so for the purpose of ascertaining whether the men
working on that job were being paid straight time or overtime.
8 While no charge was filed against the Company, the Section 8(b) (2) violation herein-
after found is in part predicated-upon the fact that the Respondent caused the Company
to discharge Hunt in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act
0 This does not include the two other Dixie Glass companies in the Houston area.
While the latter companies appear to have some relationship to the Employer here in-
volved, there are insufficient facts in the record to establish the legal affiliation if any,
which these companies may have to one another.
10T. D Plummer, the superintendent whose testimony I credit, also testified that it is
the practice of the Company to work only unionmen . Plummer testified further that he
has never hired nonunion outside glaziers.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authority to route men to their jobs, that he has authority to transfer men from one
job to another , and that he has authority to fill replacements for employees who indi-
cate they are unable to show up for work . Accordingly , and bearing in mind also the
operations of the construction industry , I am satisfied that Silva as a supervisory
employee was vested with sufficient authority to replace Hunt by telling him not to
report to work on Monday and by substituting another employee in his stead."
Before concluding , one further matter requires comment . Thus, Respondent
points out that the Company's vice president , Robert B . Zax, submitted a letter to
the Board 's Regional Office during the investigation of the instant case in which he
stated that "they (the supervisors ) told me that he [Hunt ] had not been discharged
or layed-off, that he simply failed to show up for work ." However , inasmuch as
Zax, when called as a witness , conceded that he had never spoken to Silva con-
cerning the matter of Hunt 's termination , the statements contained in Zax's letter
to the Board manifestly are of no probative value in determining the merits of this
case. 12
In sum, I find and conclude that the Respondent Union , by causing the Company
through Foreman Silva to replace Hunt with another employee on March 6, 1961,
because of Hunt's suspended union membership , restrained and coerced employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated
Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. By such conduct the Respondent caused the Com-
pany to violate Section 8 ( a)(3) of the Act and thereby engaged in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act. In addition , I find that
South 's call to Plummer , also on the morning of March 6, wherein South advised
Plummer that Hunt had been suspended from the Union and that he could not work
as a union glazier constituted an attempt by the Respondent to cause the Company
to discriminate against Hunt in violation of Section 8(a)1(3) of the Act, and thereby
constituted a further violation of Section ' 8(b)(2) and 8 (b)(1)i(A) of the Act.
Whatever the literal wording which South used to Plummer on this occasion, I
believe it unmistakably clear, and I conclude , that South thereby voiced his desire
that Hunt be removed from the job because of his suspended status.13 I can perceive
no other plausible purpose for South 's calling Plummer and Silva to notify them
of Hunt 's suspension.
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 Dixie Glass Co ., Inc., of Houston , Texas, as described
in section 1, 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
Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set
forth above , I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having caused and attempted to cause the discharge of Fred Hunt by
Dixie Glass Co., Inc., of Houston , Texas, it is recommended that the Respondent
make Hunt whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of its dis-
crimination against him by paying to him an amount equal to that which he would
11 It might be noted that Silva did not tell Hunt that he was "discharged " However,
the practical effect of replacing Hunt with another employee was to effectively terminate
his employment with the Company and thus was tantamount to a discharge
12 The same is true with respect to Plummer ' s testimony to the effect that to his
knowledge Hunt was not discharged . It was Silva , not Plummer , who was responsible
for the breaking of Hunt ' s tenure of employment with the Company Silva was not
queried as to what, If anything , he said to Plummer with respect to his action in replacing
Hunt on March 6.
13 An express demand or request for discharge is -not essential to establish a violation
of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act. Northwestern Montana District Council of Carpenters'
Unions, et 'al. (Glacier Park Company ), 126 NLRB 889 . Nor Is it a prerequisite that
such violation must be predicated upon direct or expressed threats of retaliation by a
union's agents . Chief Freight Lines Company , 111 NLRB 22 ; International Association
of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL -CIO, Local 31, et at. (Rhode
Island Covering Company ), 114 NLRB 1526 ; Southeastern Plate Glass Company, a Divi-
sion of Automobile Glass Company , Inc, at at, 129 NLRB 1093 . See also Continental
Baking Company, Inc, 128 NLRB 937.
SNOW & SONS 709
have earned from March 6, 1961, the date of the discrimination , until a date 5 days
after the Respondent notified the above Company and Hunt by telegram that it had
no objection to the future employment of Hunt,14 less Hunt 's net earnings during
said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and causing Dixie Glass Co., Inc., of Houston , Texas,
to discriminate against Fred Hunt in regard to the hire and tenure of his employ-
ment, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) 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.]
14 As hereinbefore noted , the Respondent ' s telegram notifying the Company that it had
no objection to the continued employment of Hunt (with a copy to Hunt ) is undated.
The date of receipt of the telegram by the Company and Hunt, tolling as it does the
amount of backpay owing Hunt , shall be determined during the compliance stage of this
proceeding.
Fred Snow , Harold Snow and Tom Snow d /b/a Snow & Sons
and Fruit and Vegetable Packers and Warehousemen Union
Local 760, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Cases Nos. 19-CA-2004 and 19-CA-2052. November 27, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 24,1961, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaints. Thereafter, the Charging Party and the General
Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these
proceedings, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, only to the extent consistent with
our decision herein.
In connection with the 8 (a) (5) issue, it appears that on June 6 and
7, 1960, the Union obtained signed applications for membership from
31 of approximately 52 employees in the unit found appropriate herein.
134 NLRB No. 57.