Amalgamated Union, Local 5, UAW, Independent

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 292 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO; is and at all times commencing and since
January 22, 1960, has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act.
7. By failing and refusing at all times, commencing and since January 22, 1960,
to bargain with International Union, United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of employees in the appropriate unit , the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
8. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct of supervisors, as specified in paragraph
6 of the complaint , which antedate the purchase of Respondent on December 28,
1959, or by surveillance as alleged in paragraph 8 of the complaint , or by warning
its employees that it would not grant economic benefits, as alleged in paragraph 9 of
the complaint.
9. 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.]
Amalgamated Union , Local 5, UAW, Independent and Dynamic
Manufacturing Corporation . Cases Nos. 2-CC-464 and 2-CB-
2265. April 26, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 29, 1958, Trial Examiner George A. Downing 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, except as indicated below.'
i Based on the Supreme Court's decision in N L R B. v. Drivers, Chau f eurs and Helpers
Local Union No . 639, etc. ( Curtis Brothers), 362 U.S. 274 , contrary to the Trial Examiner,
the Board finds that the Respondent did not violate Section 8 ( b) (1) (A) of the Act as
alleged in the complaint.
131 NLRB No. 43.
AMALGAMATED UNION, LOCAL 5, UAW, INDEPENDENT 293
ORDER
Upon the basis of 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,
Amalgamated Union, Local 5, UAW, Independent, its officers, repre-
sentatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging employees of Dy-
namic or any other employer to engage in a strike or a concerted re-
fusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, ma-
terials, or commodities or to perform any services where an object
thereof is to force or require Dynamic to recognize and bargain with
Respondent as the representative of its employees as long as Vibrator's
Union, or any other labor organization other than Respondent, is the
duly certified representative of said employees under the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's business offices,
meeting halls, and all places where notices to members are customarily
posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional Director for
the Second Region for posting, Dynamic willing, at all locations where
notices to Dynamic's employees are customarily posted. Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Re-
gion shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for
such posting.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF AMALGAMATED UNION, LOCAL 5, UAW,
INDEPENDENT, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF DYNAMIC MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION
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 you that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of Dynamic
Manufacturing Corporation, or any other employer, to engage
in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle
or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to
perform any services, with an object of forcing or requiring
Dynamic, Manufacturing Corporation to recognize and bargain
with us as the representative of Dynamic's employees as long as
Vibrator's Union, or any other labor organization other than
ourselves, is the duly certified representative of said employees
under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
AMALGAMATED UNION, LOCAL 5, UAW, INDEPENDENT,
Labor Organization.
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
This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act
as amended (61 Stat. 136), was heard at New York, New York, on September 29 and
30, 1958, pursuant to due notice and with all parties represented by counsel. The
complaint, which was issued on June 13, 1958, by the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board,' and which was based on charges duly filed and
served, alleged in substance that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(b)(1),(A) and 8(b)(4),(C) of the Act in that:
(1) Respondent, a minority Union, had since March 28, picketed Dynamic's plant
with an object of forcing Dynamic to recognize and bargain with it despite the fact
that another labor organization, Vibrator's Union, was duly certified by the Board's
Regional Director on May 16 as the exclusive representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit; and (2) by such picketing and by requests, appeals, directions, etc.,
Respondent had induced employees of Dynamic and of other employers doing
business with it to engage in strikes and concerted refusals in the course of their
employment to use, transport, and otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, and
materials, and to perform services for their respective employers, thereby bringing
economic coercion to bear upon the Company with the object stated above.
Respondent answered on June 25, denying that it had engaged in unfair labor
practices as alleged, and pleading as a further defense that its picketing was peaceful
'The , General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as
the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board Respondent
is referred to as the Union, and the Charging Party as Dynamic and as the Company.
All events herein occurred in 1958.
AMALGAMATED UNION, LOCAL 5, UAW, INDEPENDENT 295
and was for the purpose of organizing Dynamic's employees. Respondent also
pleaded that Vibrator's Union was a company-dominated and assisted organization
and that Dynamic, through coercion and intimidation, had denied the employees
the right to a free choice of a bargaining representative and had coerced them to
designate the Vibrator's Union as their said representative. The latter defenses
were stricken at the hearing, on the General Counsel's motion, on the authority of
Meat & Provision Drivers Union, Local No. 626, etc. (Lewis Food Company),
115 NLRB 890, and Local No. 224, etc. (Queen Ribbon & Carbon Co., Inc.), 116
NLRB 890.
Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the conclusion of the hear-
ing, is denied for reasons hereinafter stated.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Respondent , a New York corporation with its principal office in New York City,
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of massage and therapeutic equipment. Its
annual sales are in excess of $ 100,000, of which approximately 95 percent are to
extrastate points. It is, therefore, engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Employees of Dynamic organized themselves into a union, under the name of
Vibrator's Union, a few days before March 19, for the purpose of obtaining better
working conditions, raises, and other similar benefits. On March 19, through their
officers, they entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with Dynamic, effective
on that date, for a term of 2 years. Vibrator's Union is therefore a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The representation case; Respondent's charges
On March 19, Vibrator's Union filed a representation petition with the Board's
Second Region in Case No. 2-RC-9350, for a unit consisting of Dynamic's produc-
tion, maintenance, and shipping department employees, excluding clerical and office
employees, professional, and supervisory employees, representing that no other
parties or organizations had claimed recognition and that no other unions were
interested in the said unit.
On March 26 Dynamic and Vibrator's entered into a consent election agreement,
which was approved by the Regional Director on March 27. An election was held
on the basis of that agreement on May 8,2 with Vibrator's polling 10 valid votes in
its favor and with no votes against it (there being approximately 10 eligible voters).
On May 16 the Regional Director issued, on behalf of the Board, a formal certifica-
tion of Vibrator's as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit involved in the proceeding.
Respondent filed unfair labor practice charges on March 28, as amended April 9,
in case No. 2-CA-5856, alleging that Dynamic had violated Section 8(a) (1) and (2)
of the Act with respect to the Vibrator's Union. which charges were dismissed by the
Regional Director on April 29 for insufficient evidence. Respondent filed further
charges on May 2 against Dynamic and Vibrator's Cases Nos. 2-CA-5915 and 2-
CB-235, respectively, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) by
Dynamic and of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) by Vibrator's, which charges were dis-
missed by the Regional Director on May 7 for insufficient evidence. Appeals from
the dismissal of all the foregoing charges, taken by Respondent to the General Coun-
sel's office in Washington, were dismissed by the General Counsel on September 5
on the basis of insufficient evidence,3
2 Respondent's counsel represented that in the meantime Respondent had learned of
the pending proceeding and had been directed by the Regional Director to file a showing
of interest when it produced only a single card, signed after the consent election agree-
ment, Respondent was refused permission to intervene and was denied a place on the ballot
because It had made no showing of interest prior to the consent election agreement
2A Section 10(1) proceeding for an injunction is pending In the Federal court, but no
hearing has been held The parties stipulated on June 28 that the hearing therein be
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The picketing and its object
On March 28 Respondent began picketing Respondent 's plant, which occupied a
building fronting on Randall Avenue and extending back along Faile Street. Pickups
and deliveries were made from twin front doors on Randall Avenue, but plant em-
ployees used only a side door on Faile Street , near the rear end of the building. The
picketing continued until after the filing of the injunction petition . A single paid
employee of the Union, Carlos Quiroz, patrolled mainly along Randall Avenue,4
carrying a sign which bore the following legend:
THE EMPLOYEES OF DYNAMIC ARE NON-UNION
HELP US ORGANIZE THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS SHOP
AND ESTABLISH UNION WORKING CONDITIONS
LOCAL 5, U.A.W. AFFILIATED WITH C.U.A.
Witnesses for the General Counsel testified that the picket frequently stopped
trucks as they approached the front entrances for the purpose of making pickups or
deliveries and that in many of such cases the drivers left without making the pickup
or delivery. Joseph Cavalieri, a driver for Dunwel Wood Products , testified, for
example, to two occasions when he was stopped by the picket, who told him "No
deliveries here," that there was a "phony union here ," and that Local 5 was trying to
organize the plant. On the first occasion Cavalieri left without making the delivery,
but he later returned and made it
There was also testimony by Morris Marks, Ralph Deneroff, and Harriet Deneroff
(all officers of Dynamic ) concerning a lengthy running conversation with Benjamin
Ross (also known as Krakofski), general manager of Respondent , which occurred
on the afternoon and evening of April 25 . To the extent that it is material to the
issues herein , their testimony was in substance that Ross stated that Dynamic
should sign up with him because he (or his union) was the cheapest in the business,
that he would keep the picket there for 6 months if necessary , and that sooner or
later Dynamic would have to give in and give him a contract.
The Deneroffs also testified to a telephone conversation on June 5, between
Ross and Ralph Deneroff ( to which Harriet listened on an extension phone) during
which Deneroff inquired why Ross had not withdrawn the picket in view of the
certification of the Vibrator's Union . Ross replied that he was aware of the cer-
tification , but that did not make any difference, and that the situation was the same
as before , because the decision (dismissing Respondent's unfair labor practice
charges against Dynamic ) could be reversed by the Board in Washington. When
Ross stated further that a court order was about the only thing which would stop
him from picketing , Deneroff said that he would get an injunction.
Quiroz testified that since May 16 he continued to ask employees to join the
Union but at no time asked , requested , or directed them to go out on strike, nor
did he ask them to stop working for Dynamic. He also denied that he requested
the employees of any employer to go out on strike or to refuse to handle or work
on goods of Dynamic. He made no denial , however , of Cavalieri 's testimony.
Ross admitted having a lengthy conversation with the Deneroffs and Marks on
April 25, but he denied the significant portions of their testimony ( i.e., that he
intended to picket for 6 months, or until Dynamic capitulated , and that he demanded
that it sign a contract with him ). Ross testified that Quiroz was with him on the
occasion , and Quiroz testified that he was present except for a portion of the time
and that he did not hear Ross make the statements which Marks and the Deneroffs
attributed to him . Neither Marks nor the Deneroffs referred to Quiroz ' presence.
Indeed , all their testimony indicated that Ross was unaccompanied on the occasion.
In resolving the above credibility issue, there are two main considerations. One
is the mutually corroborative testimony of the three witnesses for the General
Counsel, and the other is that Ross ' demeanor and manner of testifying was such
that his testimony cannot be credited except where it received substantial corrobora-
adjourned to September 9 and later stipulated that the hearing be further adjourned to
November 18; that pending the hearing , the picketing by Respondent would cease, but
that the withdrawal of the picketing would not constitute an admission or concession of
the allegations of the petition for injunction , nor would the stipulation prevent the Union
from soliciting Dynamic's employees for membership in Respondent
& The General Counsel's witnesses testified that they saw the picket patrol only on
Randall Avenue Quiroz testified that he also sometimes talked with the employees along
Faile Street as they approached to enter the plant , but that at such times he was not
wearing his sign Though the point is of slight materiality, the conflict is reconcilable by
a finding that Quiroz patrolled with a sign only on Randall Avenue.
AMALGAMATED UNION, LOCAL 5, UAW, INDEPENDENT 297
tion . Quiroz' testimony did not constitute such corroboration in view of the lengthy
period over which the conversation occurred, his admitted absence for a part of the
time, and the fact that none of the General Counsel's witnesses testified that he was
present at the time when Ross made the crucial statements which they testified to.
As for the telephone conversation in June, Ross admitted that Deneroff asked
him to remove the picket and that he refused to do so. He testified further that
Deneroff then tried to bribe him or buy him off, and he denied that he demanded
recognition or a contract at the time . Ross' testimony , being unsupported here,
cannot be credited over the mutually corroborative testimony of the Deneroffs.
C. Respondent's case
After the striking of Respondent's affirmative defenses concerning the alleged
status of Vibrator's Union as an assisted and dominated union, much of Respond-
ent's evidence was received as an offer of proof in the form of Ross' testimony
in question and answer form. Other evidence, though offered and received in sup-
port of Respondent 's denial that Vibrator's was a labor organization, amounted to
little more than an attempt to support the stricken affirmative defenses. It is there-
fore unnecessary to summarize such evidence in detail . In fact, Respondent's
counsel conceded that the evidence which it presented to the Regional Office in
support of its charges was hearsay; and much of Ross' testimony at the hearing
concerning Respondent 's alleged efforts in January and February to organize Dy-
namic's employees at its former location was similarly based on hearsay. Ross'
claim that he later assigned some 5 organizers to Dynamic's plant in March is in-
credible in view of the fact that only some 10 to 15 employees were involved and
in view of the credited testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses that there
were no organizational activities by Respondent prior to March 26.
All that remained of Respondent's case which was material to the issues were
Ross' denials that he ever sought recognition or a contract and his claim that Re-
spondent's activities were purely organizational. But that testimony has been re-
jected, and the contrary testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses has been
accepted, for reasons above stated.
Because of Respondent's strenuous attack on the Vibrator's Union and on the
Regional Director's dismissal of its charges, further reference should be made to the
Lewis Food and Queen Ribbon cases, supra, on the authority of which the Trial
Examiner struck Respondent's affirmative defenses. Briefly stated, the effect of the
Board's holdings is to preclude collateral litigation of an alleged violation of Section
8(a) (2) of the Act in complaint proceedings involving alleged violations of Section
8(b) (4) (C). See, a g., Queen Ribbon & Carbon Co. Inc, supra, at 891, 916-917.
The only significant distinction between those cases and the present one is that
Respondent here first attempted a direct attack under Section 8(a)(2), though the
dismissal of its charges prevented it from receiving a hearing and enabled the repre-
sentation case to proceed. But that distinction is not a material one and does not
render the above cases inapposite. To hold otherwise would permit the litigation
on their merits of charges on which the General Counsel has declined to proceed,
a matter on which he has final authority under Section 3(d). As the Board pointed
out in Times Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361, 364-365, such a holding
would create a situation in which the Board would be acting as a forum "for con-
sidering the content of charges which the General Counsel, for reason satisfactory
to himself, has thought it proper to dismiss."
Though the Board is precluded from passing directly on the propriety of the
Regional Director's action in dismissing Respondent's charges, it is nevertheless
free, if it so desires, to review administratively his actions in the representation pro-
ceeding, since the statute (Section 9) specifically entrusts all such matters to the
Board itself.
D. Concluding findings
1. The Section 8(b) (4) (C) case
Section 8(b) (4) (C) provides, so far as here relevant, that it shall be an unfair
labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to induce or, encourage the
employees of any employer to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course
of their employment to use, manufacture, transport, handle, or work on any
goods, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require any
employer to recognize or bargain with a particular labor organization as the repre-
sentative of his employees if another labor organization has been certified as the
representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The certification of Vibrator's Union was established by stipulation and by receipt
of the certification itself. The proscribed object was plainly established by the
.credited testimony of Marks and the Deneroffs concerning Ross' efforts to have them
sign a contact with Respondent.
The remaining factor of inducement of employees was supplied by the picketing
and the testimony concerning the stopping of trucks and the interference with pick-
cups and deliveries at Dynamic's plant. Indeed, the Board has held that (1) the
maintenance of a traditional picket line before employee entrances-wholly apart
from the literal appeal of the signs carried by the pickets-constitutes an act of in-
ducement or encouragement of employees who must perform services behind the
picket line, to engage in a concerted refusal to perform services for their employer;
and (2) such picketing-whether or not it succeeds in bringing about a strike or
concerted refusal by employees to perform work-is within the reach of Section
8(b) (4) of the Act, if it is directed to one of the objectives therein prohibited. Dis-
trict Lodge No. 24, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO (Industrial
Chrome Plating Co.), 121 NLRB 1298 (decided October 14, 1958); Knit Goods
Workers' Union, Local 155, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-
-CIO (James Knitting Mills, Inc), 117 NLRB 1468, 1469; Laundry, Linen Supply,
etc. Local No. 928, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. (Southern Service
Company, Ltd.), 118 NLRB 1435, 1437; Local No. 25, Bakery & Confectionery
Workers International Union et al. (King's Bakery, Inc.), 116 NLRB 290, 293.
It is, therefore, concluded and found that on and after May 16, 1958,5 Respondent
by its said picketing, appeals, and directions, induced and encouraged employees of
employers to engage in a strike and in a concerted refusal to use, transport, handle,
and work on goods, articles and materials, and to perform services for their respec-
tive employers, with an object of forcing and requiring Dynamic to recognize and
bargain with it, despite the fact that Vibrator's Union was the certified representative
of Dynamic's employees in an appropriate unit in a Section 9 proceeding. Lewis
Food Company, supra; Queen Ribbon and Carbon Company, supra; Industrial
Chrome Plating Company, supra.
2. The Section 8(b)(1)(A) case
Section 8(b)(1)(A) provides, so far as here relevant, that it shall be an unfair
labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to restrain or coerce employees
in the exercise of their Section 7 rights; and Section 7 (in part) guarantees to em-
ployees the right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing.
The Board has held in a line of recent decisions 6 that picketing by a minority
union for recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of an employer's
employees is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) because it results in economic restraint
and coercion of the employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The rationale
of the Board in reaching this conclusion is fully explicated in the Curtis and Alloy
cases (see footnote 6) and need not be here repeated. Those decisions, being plainly
in point, constitute precedents which are binding upon the Trial Examiner.
It is therefore concluded and found that by picketing Dynamic's plant on and after
March 28, 1958, when it did not represent a majority of Dynamic's employees in an
appropriate unit, with an object of requiring Dynamic to recognize and bargain with
it, Respondent restrained and coerced Dynamic's employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
5 Though the complaint charged a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (C) beginning on or
about March 28, there could, of course, have been no violation of this section prior to
the certification of Vibrator's Union
e Drivers, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Local 649, International Bortherhood of Teamsters,
etc (Curtis Brothers, Inc ), 119 NLRB 232; International Association of Machinists,
Lodge 942, AFL-CIO (Alloy Manufacturing Company, etc), 119 NLRB 307; Willard W.
Shepherd et at d/b/a Shepherd Machinery Company, 119 NLRB 320; International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, et at. (Rufalo's Trucking Service, Inc), 119 NLRB 1268;
Paint. Varnish & Lacquer Makers Union, Local 1242, et at. (Andrew Brown Company),
120 NLRB 1425; General Teamsters , Packers, Food Processors and Warehousemen Union
Local No. 912, et at. (H. A. Rider & Sons ), 120 NLRB 1577; Joint Council of Sportswear,
etc (Harou, Inc and En Tour), 120 NLRB 659; United Rubber, Cork. Linoleum and
Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 511 (O'Sullivan Rubber Corpora-
tion ), 121 NLRB 1439
J.E. PLASTICS MFG. CORP. 299
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in activities which violate Section
8(b)(C) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action of the type conventionally or-
^dered in such cases, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of
the unfair labor practices and 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. Dynamic is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union and Vibrator' s Union are labor organizations within the
-meaning of the Act.
3. At all times since May 16 , 1958, Vibrator's Union has been the duly certified
representative of the employees of Dynamic in an appropriate unit , under the pro-
visions of Section 9 of the Act.
4. By inducing and encouraging employees of Dynamic and other employers to
engage in a strike or in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to per-
form services for their respective employers, with an object of forcing or requiring
Dynamic to recognize and bargain with it as the representative of Dynamic's em-
ployees in an appropriate unit , at a time when Vibrator's Union was the duly certi-
fied bargaining representative of the said employees in said unit , Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(C) of
the Act.
5. By picketing Dynamic's plant when it did not represent a majority of Dynamic's
employees, with an object of forcing Dynamic to recognize and bargain with it,
thereby restraining and coercing Dynamic's employees in the exercise of rights guar-
.anteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with Dy-
namic's operations as set forth under section I, above, have a close , intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
.substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
;[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
J.E. Plastics Mfg. Corp . and General Paper & Artificial Flower
Workers Union , Local 679, International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA-
7324. April 27, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 11, 1961, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his In-
termediate 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 Interme-
diate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac-
tices and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief.'
I The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the record,
exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
1131 NLRB No. 44.