Katz Drug Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 867 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

KATZ DRUG COMPANY 867
Beulah Bowden
Josephine Munoz
Mattle Clark
Winona Whalen
Lena Capello
Bernice Balmanski
Ann Senger
Maria Gutierrez
Gladys Saldana
Henrietta DeLeon
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization . We will not discriminate against any
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
IRVING LAMBERT, MURRAY B . LAMBERT,
SEYMOUR LAMBERT , D/B/A SUE-ANN
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Employer.
By -----------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered , defaced , or covered by`any other material.
KATZ DRU+d' COMPANY and' WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION WORKERS,
LOCAL 688, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS or AMERICA,
AFL. Ca8e No. 14-CA--585. March 28,1952
Decision and Order
On September 6, 1951, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practice alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report. Both-the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent filed 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings of fact and
finds merit to the exceptions to his conclusions and recommendations
to the extent indicated in this Decision and Order.
98 NLRB No. 140
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial-Eitaminer found that the Respondent had not violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint, by soliciting
from its employees individual affidavits in which the affiant expressly
denied membership in, or authorized representation by, the Union.,.
In,:making this finding the Trial Examiner relied upon the Board's
well-established rule that an employer may lawfully interrogate its
employees, where such interrogation is•a necessary part of its defense
to charges of unfair labor practices and is strictly limited to the scope
of the issues r=aised in the complaint.2 This rule is an exception to the
Board's normal rule that interrogation of employees concerning their
union membership is per, se interference with, restraint, and coercion
of employees within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1).3 The Respond-
ent contends, and the Trial Examiner in dismissing the complaint
agrees, that the interrogation of Respondent's employees in this case
brings it within the exception to the rule .against interrogation, as
expressed in Joy Silk Mills v. N. L. R. B.4 We do not agree.
The circumstances of this case are - substantially different from
the,Joy Silk Mills case and other decisions upon which the Respondent
relies., , Here the record reveals . that 280 of the Respondent's em-
ployees were asked by the Respondent's personnel manager or one of
its district managers to read the prepared affidavit, with no explana-
tion of its purpose or the use to Ivhich it would be put, and to sign
or not, as they wished. One of the employees testified that she signed
the affidavit in the store manager's office. Another employee testified
that he signed at the store counter. The signing of the affidavits was
accomplished while the -Respondent's stores were being picketed by
the Union. The Respondent asserts that the solicitation • of these
affidavits was necessary to secure evidence in support of its suit in
the Missouri courts to enjoin the Union from maintaining pickets and
compelling recognition from the Respondent as the bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees. It appears that Missouri forbids picketing
activities to secure recognition where the picketing union does not
3 The text of the affidavit is as follows :
Each of the undersigned , being first duly sworn upon his or her oath, deposes and
states that he or she is an employee of the Katz Drug Company, working in the store
located at , (address of store ) ; that he or she is not a member of Warehouse and
Distribution Workers Union, Local 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L.; that he
or she has not authorized said Union to represent him or her for the purpose of
collective bargaining; and that said Union does not represent him or her for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or for any other purpose.
s For example, May Department Stores Company, a corporation, d/b/a Famous-Barr
Company, 70 NLRB 94; N. & W. Overall Company, Incorporated, 51 NLRB 1016;
Richard F. Kline, 39 NLRB 1047.
3 For .a discussion of this doctrine, see Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358.
4 85 NLRB 1263, enfd. 185 F. 2d 732.
KATZ, DRUG 'COMPANY 869
represent a majority of the employer's employees .5 To establish
this fact the Respondent sought these affidavits from its employees.
It is undisputed on the record, however, that the Union, in its first con-
ference with the Respondent on' December 7, 1950, admitted that it
did not represent a majority'of the employees. This admission was
repeated by union officials during a meeting of its Local on December
9, in the presence of representatives of the Respondent. The affidavits,
in fact, were never, used by the Respondent in the court proceedings
because the Union admitted during the court hearing, as it, had pre-
viously admitted' to the Respondent, that it did not represent a'majority
of the employees.
• The Trial Examiner -nevertheless found that the Respondent, hav-
ing limited its interrogation to the scope of the issues in the injunction
proceedings, was privileged to seek the affidavits, under the Joy Silk
Mills and other decisions. He 'regarded the Respondent's failure to
make any explanation to its employees when it submitted the affidavits
to,them as a question relating solely to illegal motivation, which the
parties had stipulated was not an issue in this case. As to the, Union's
admission of the fact sought to be established by the affidavits, the
Trial Examiner held that the Respondent had "no sure foreknowledge"
that the Union would repeat this admission in court.
An exception, however, such as the one applied in Joy Silk, Mills
to the general rule guaranteeing employees their right to be free from
unlawful interrogation, must be, narrowly applied. As, the court in
that case stated, a limited amount of such questioning, may be per-
mitted in fairness to the employer. , But each case must be carefully
scrutinized on its facts, lest undue license to .employers result in sub-
stantial interference with the rights of employees protected by Section
7 of the Act. An employee confronted by his superior with an affidavit
in which he is asked to swear that he is not, a member of a union seeking
to represent him, while that union is engaged in picketing, the em-
ployer as part of an organizing campaign, might reasonably conclude
that his election not to sign would bring swift economic reprisal. The
Respondent in this case, contrary to the implications of the dissent,
made no attempt to allay these natural fears, nor could it possibly
have violated Section 8 (a) (1) by doing or saying the little more that
would have been necessary for that purpose. Instead, it gave its
employees no explanation of any nature; it merely asked them to sign
or not, as they wished. Regardless of the Respondent's actual motiva-
a In view of our decision herein , we find It unnecessary to consider whether the Em-
ployer's Invocation of the Misouri law against this type of picketing , which seems to go
beyond the restrictions contained in the amended Act, would Itself warrant a decision
contrary to the Trial Examiner 's recommendation.
998666-vol. 98-53-56
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion,6 we are of the opinion and find that the Respondent's interroga-
tion of its employees, the normal coercive effect of which was un-
mitigated by any explanation, was not privileged by the exception to
the Board's rule against interrogation set forth in the Joy Silk Mills
and other cases.' Indeed, in view of the Union's repeated admissions
of : e.fact sought to-be-established by the Respoiidenb'ss interrogittity
affidavits, we also are not persuaded that such interrogation was, in
any event, necessary to the Respondent's injunction proceeding in
the Missouri courts.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent, by soliciting these affi-
davits in the manner set forth above, and in view of the Union's admis-
sions that it did not, in fact, represent a majority of the employees,
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of, the National Labor Relations Act, as, amx>ded the National Labor
RelItitms" Bbaid hereby orders that the RLt onderit ; Kat aDrug" 5m-
pany and its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogation of its employees concerning their membership in
and activities on behalf of Warehousemen and Distribution Workers,
Local 688 , affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL, or in any
other labor organization of its employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations , to, join or assist Warehouse and
Distribution Workers ,.Local 688 , affiliated with International Brother-
hood of.Teanisters , Chailffe irs, WarehousemeiLand Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
Our dissenting colleague stresses the absence of any intent by the Respondent to violate
the Act. And, by characterizing the Respondent 's questions as "lawful per se," he is
presumably also emphasizing the fact that these questions were unaccompanied by threats
or promises of benefit . But both of these considerations are beside the point, for the
Board's concern in interdicting interrogation is with the coercive effect which such
conduct has upon employees , and with the manner in which interrogation injects the
employer into an area guaranteed by the Act as the exclusive concern of employees. As
such , neither the lack of an unlawful intent no r the absence of threats or promises, is
material . That is precisely what the Board has meant when it has so often characterized
interrogatipn as unlawful per se
7 While'it' may be true , as the dissent states , that the Board in the Joy Silk Mills deci-
sion did not state in so many words that the rule of that case is qualified by a requirement
that the employees be made cognizant of the purpose of the interrogation, the fact remains
that in that case, and in others like it, that requirement was met . We believe that in
cases, such as the instant one, where that requirement is not met , an exception to the
usual ban on interrogation should not be found.
KATZ DRUG COMPANY 87-1
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such right may be effected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following.,affirmati„ve action,,which the Board, finds.will
effeetu to the policies of the Act':"
(a) Post at its establishment in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies of said notice,,
'to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region,
shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing, within- ten •(10)cAays from the date of this Order,,whai,steps
the Respan ent lL s taken to coinpiy•'thefewit '.
MEMBER MU1WOCK, dissenting:
I cannot agree with my colleagues that the Respondent has violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the limited questioning of its em-
ployees with regard to a factual issue vital to its suit for an.injunction
in a State court .9
I do not believe that Congress intended the freedom from coercion
and restraint granted employees in the Act to be carried to the point
of denying employers the right to procure and submit evidence essen-
tial to a court action. Nor do I believe that this Board has the legal
right, to substitute its judgment, for thi.t;,of the employer ai}d its;at-
torneys as to what evidence is essential and relevant in its State court
actions or as to the 'best means of procuring such evidence. The
majority's decision does both.
Of course, an employer should not be allowed in its search for such
evidence intentionally or unreasonably to invade the rights of its
employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. By stipulation of the
parties it is agreed that the Employer in this case was not motivated
by such unlawful intention and, as appears below, I do not think it
can fairly be held that the Employer's conduct was unreasonable.
s 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 ','Pursppnt, 'to a Decision and Order ," the words
"Pursuant+ to a Deciee of the United States Count Of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
° I shall not discuss the question relating to the jurisdiction of the Missouri State court
as this issue was not raised by any of the parties and was not passed upon by the majority
in their decision.
872, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It has been, as the majority emphasize, a well-settled rule of this
Board, with court sanction; that -an employer may interview its em-
ployees to discover facts within-the limits of issues raised by a com-
plaint" . . . where the employer, or its counsel does not go beyond the
necessities of such preparation-to pry into matters of union member-
ship, to discuss the nature or,extent ,of union activity, to dissuade
employees from joining or remaining members of a union, or otherwise
to interfere with the statutory right to self-organization." 10 In none
of the'cdses setting forth this rule until today has it appeared that the
employer, must affirmatively state, in conjunction with its limited'
questioning, the nature and purpose of the questions. Indeed, the
import of these cases would seem-to be that the.employer is most pro-
tected' where it is least talkative. Presumably, the Respondent was
aware of these cases and therefore carefully phrased its questions to
bring them within the strict limits of the issues being litigated, care-
fully refraining from making any statements which might be inter-
preted as interfering with 'the rights of its employees under Section 7.
It had no intention, the parties stipulated, to violate the Act by sub-
jecting its employees to an unlawful type of interrogation. It desired
only to avail itself of a privilege repeatedly affirmed by the Board
and the courts in explicit language. But the Respondent, it now ap-
pears, acted at its peril when it relied upon, this principle. Although
its questions were admittedly lawful 'per se, the majority find for the
first time that the exception to the rule' against interrogation includes
a condition precedent, a condition never before suggested in the cited
cases and of which the Respondent could not have been aware. Previ-
ously, employers have been found to be in violation of the Act by
talking too much; here the majority find that an employer has violated,
the Act by not talking enough.
I cannot concur in this interpretation of the Board's rule correctly
set forth by the court in the Joy Silk Mills case. In my opinion,
neither the lack of an explanation by the Respondent nor the Union's
admission that it did not represent a majority of the employees are
factors of such crucial importance to warrant distinguishing this case
from the cases upon which the'Respondent relies. It is clear that the
Respondent attempted by every means in its power and in good faith
to avoid a violation of the Act. I do not believe that the privilege it
thought the Board had extended to it should prove to be nothing more
than an enticement to a violation of Section 8 (a) (1). '
I would therefore, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.
"May Department Stores Company, supra.
KATZ DRUG COMPANY 873
Appendix.A
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 interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliations, activities, or sympathies, or in any like, or related
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations, to join or assist Warehouse and Distribution Workers,
Local 688 affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage- in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or, other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8,' (a) (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
All our members are free to become or remain members of any
labor organization or to refrain from such-affiliation except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment against any
employee because he has engaged in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
KATZ DRUG COMPANY,
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
Upon a charge filed on January 5, 1951, by Warehouse and Distribution Work-
ers, Local 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L., herein called the Union, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respec-
tively the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued his complaint dated July 3,
874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1951, against Katz Drug Company, herein called Respondent, alleging that Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the
Act. A copy of the charge, the complaint, and a notice of hearing were duly
served upon Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in substance,
that Respondent from on or about December 9, 1951, interrogated its employees
concerning their membership in and activity on behalf of the Union, thereby
interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
-`;ii'ghtS fnitt nfeed in'Section 7 of the Act.
Respondent filed its answer dated July 12, 1951, admitting certain allegations
of the complaint with respect to the nature of its business, but denying that it
had engaged in any unfair labor practices. As an affirmative defense Respond-
ent asserts that, although it interrogated its employees concerning their union
membership , it did so solely in order to obtain relevant and material evidence
in a case then pending in the Circuit Court of Jackson County , Missouri, where
Respondent was seeking an injunction against the picketing of its stores by
the Union.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 30, 1951, at St. Louis, Missouri,
before Horace A.. Ruckel, the undersigned Trial, Examiner, duly appointed by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, Respondent, and the Union
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing . Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues , was afforded all parties.
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were advised that they might
argue orally before the undersigned, and might file briefs with him by August
14, 1951. The parties waived oral argument. On August 13,1951,, the General
Counsel and Respondent filed briefs . The undersigned granted without objec-
tion a motion by the General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof in
formal matters . Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation
of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is and has been for many years a Delaware corporation having
its principal office in Kansas City, Missouri , and several other establishments in
Kansas City and St. Louis, and in various other States , where it is engaged in
the business,of selling .and.distributing various goads and merchandise including,
among other things, drugs, clothing , household appliances , and hardware.
Respondent , during the course and conduct of its business at its St. Louis,
Missouri , establishment , during the year 1950 purchased various materials
consisting of drugs, cosmetics , sundries , candy , and tobacco valued in excess of
$1,000,000, of which more than 50 percent originated from points outside the
State of Missouri . Respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
- Warehouse and Distribution :Workers, Local 688 , ;affiliated .with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen ; and Helpers of America,
A. F. L., is a labor organization admitting employees of Respondent to
membership.
KATZ DRUG COMPANY 875
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged interference, re8traint, and coercion
The facts are simple and not in dispute. On December, 8, 1950, the Union,
although it* did not represent a majority of Respondent's employees, picketed
several of Respondent's stores and warehouses in Missouri, and displayed signs-
stating: "Katz Drug Company is non-union in St. Louis." It is asserted that a
Missouri statute makes picketing unlawful when the Union does not represent
a majority, at least where the purpose of the picketing, as Respondent contends.
was the situation here, is to compel or persuade an employer to enter into a
contract with a union or otherwise accord it recognition. Whether this is a
-.co 'eet'statement df fild,law^-need-hot cbncern us here. On`December 8, Respond-
ent filed suit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, seeking a restrain-
ing order against the Union and certain of its officers and agents. The order
was issued and the defendants were called upon to show cause on December 13
why an injunction should not be entered.
At the hearing on December 13, the defendants filed their answer in which,
they admitted that the Union did not represent a majority of Respondent's-
employees. The circuit court found a violation of the law and issued an injunc-
tion restraining the defendants from further picketing. By reason of the answer
of the defendants it became unnecessary for Respondent to file various affidavits.
„,,-,which,. its ^y-seplmseIItativc ^,haddobtaineti' from its. empieytes,1-the1,6btaifiing"-Of
which is the sole ground upon which the complaint rests.
The affidavits in question were sought from all of the employees and obtained,
apparently, from 380 of them. They were substantially in the following form :
Each of the undersigned, being first duly sworn upon his or her oath,
deposes and states that he or she is an employee of the Katz Drug Company,
working in the store-located at (address of store) ;'that he or she is not a
member of Warehouse and Distribution Workers Union, Local 688, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, A. F. of L.; that he or she has not authorized
said Union to represent him or her for the purpose of collective bargaining;
and that said Union does not represent him or her for the purpose of
collective bargaining, or for any other purpose.
When the employees were presented with a copy of the above affidavit they
were asked to read and sign it, or not sign it, as they wished. There was no
further conversation between the employees and Respondent's representative
who solicited the affidavits.
-Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated the Act in procuring
the affidavits of employees under these circumstances. Specifically, he points.
out that the employees were not told the purpose of the affidavits, or assured that
they had a right to join or not to join a labor organization as they saw fit. He
further urges, and it is a fact, that at conferences on December 7 and 9, at which
representatives of Respondent and the Union were present, the latter informed
the former that they did not represent a majority of the employees at that time
although they expected to in the future. In view of this admission the General
Counsel argues that it was not necessary to procure the affidavits since the
critical fact in the injunction case was admitted.
I disagree with these. contentions. With respect to the second one, Respond-
ent's counsel could not reasonably have been expected to rely upon out-of-court
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL,,LABOR: RELATIONS BOARD
declarations of a union representative as a method -of proving the principal
point in its case. The Union's answer was not filed until its appearance in court
on December 13. 'While it did admit that the Union did not represent a majority
of defendant's employees, Respondent had-no sure foreknowledge..thatriit would
do so. To meet the eventuality of the Union's asserting, otherwise, it was in-
cumbent upon counsel in preparing their case to support the petition -for an
injunction by proper evidence. Such, evidence customarily takes the form of
affidavits, with or without the testimony of witnesses. ,
With respect to the General Counsel's contention that Respondent should have
informed its employees of the purpose of the affidavits and assured them that
they had the right to join or refrain from joining a labor organization, doubtless
this would have been desirable. If there were other substantial evidence of
interference it might possibly be contended that Respondent, in failing to state
its purpose and to give such, assurances, was endeavoring to intimidate -its
employees under the guise of preparing its lawsuit. But there is no such other
evidence in the record. Moreover, it was stipulated at the hearing that Respond-
ent had no "subjective intent to interfere with, restrain, or coerce" its employees,
"in their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act."
Under the circumstances of this case, I find that Respondent's procuring of
these affidavits comes within the exception to the general rule that an employer
may not inquire as to the union affiliations of its employees. This exception has
been established in various decisions of the Board. As described in the Joy
case' it is "whether the information elicited was within the scope of the issues
raised by the complaint, and if not whether the inquiries under the 'circumstances
in which they were made, constituted interference, restraint and coercion." In
that case the Board found that some of the inquiries were not confined to the
scope of the issues, but pertained to such matters as the payment of membership
and other fees, agreement as to future dues, and such subjective matters as
the employees' understanding of the purpose and effect of union membership
cards and whether he had voted freely in a Board election. Such factors are
not present here. The information solicited by Respondent was, in my opinion,
clearly within the scope 'of the issues in the injunction proceeding and it was
confined thereto.
I find that Respondent, by soliciting affidavits of its employees as to their
union membership and activity, did not engage in interference, restraint,'and
coercion within the meaning of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Warehouse and Distribution Workers, Local 688, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, A. F. L. is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of. the Act.
2. Respondent, Katz Drug Company, is, and at all times relevant herein was,
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practice within the meaning
of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
I Joy Silk Mills v. N. L. R . B., 185 F. 2d 732, enforcing 85 NLRB 1263