Bar-Brook Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 610 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
BAR-BROOK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL
#79, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 15-CA-486. June 17, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 21, 1953, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered
the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions , and recommendation of the Trial Examiner with
the following addition.
Respondent in the instant case renews its contention, re-
jected by the Board in its Supplemental Decision and Certifica-
tion of Representatives (101 NLRB No. 43), that the election
conducted among its employees pursuant to a Board Decision
and Direction of Election (issued July 14, 1952), should be set
aside because of allegedly unlawful conduct on the part of the
Union. The Board has reconsidered this contention and finds, in
addition to its previous findings, that assuming the conduct
occurred as alleged by Respondent in its objections to the
election and reiterated in its brief in support of its exceptions
in this case , it was nonetheless too remote in time to have
interfered with the employees' free choice in the election.' Ac-
cordingly we reaffirm the Board's Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representatives.
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 Bar-Brook
Manufacturing Company, Inc., of Shreveport, Louisiana, its
officers , agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Mem-
bers Murdock, Styles, and Peterson].
2 NAPA New York Warehouse, Inc., 75 NLRB 1269, 1271; Krambo Food Stores, Inc.,
101 NLRB 742.
105 NLRB No. 89.
BAR-BROOK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 611
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local #79, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and
Helpers of America, AFL, in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's
Shreveport, Louisiana, attic and window fan manufacturing
plant, including the shipping clerk, inventory clerk, and so-
called "seasonal employees," but excluding the office clerical
employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and
supervisors.
(b) By threats of reprisal for union activity, or in any other
manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Local #79, International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers
of America, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities, except to the extent 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 Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local #79, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and
Helpers of America, AFL, as the exclusive representative of
its employees in the appropriate unit described above, and
embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant and office in Shreveport, Louisiana, copies
of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix
A.3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for the Fifteenth Region, after having been duly signed
by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in
writing, within ten (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 dismissed
in all other respects.
3 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" in the caption the words "A Decision and order." In the event that
this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall
be further amended by substituting for the words "A Decision and Order ," the words "A
Decree of the United Stares Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
61 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been filed by Local #79, international Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America , AFL, herein called the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region (New Orleans , Louisiana), issued his complaint dated February 26, 1953, against
Bar-Brook Manufacturing Company, herein called the Respondent , alleging in substance
that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean ing of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein
called the Act, in that the Respondent (1) since on or about February 16, 1953, has refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in
an appropriate unit, and (2) since on or about April 15, 1952, engaged in acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion by (a) interrogating employees concerning union activities, (b)
threatening employees with reprisal if they supported the Union and established it as col-
lective -bargaining representative , (c) promising them benefits if they did not, and (d) so-
liciting employee help in antiunion activity. The Respondent in its answer denied the com-
mission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 23, 1953, at Shreveport, Louisiana,
before Arthur Leff, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. All parties were represented at the hearing . Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties. At the close of the General Counsel's case, the Respondent moved
to dismiss the independent 8 (a) (1) allegations of the complaint. The motion was denied.
A motion made by the General Counsel at the end of the entire case, to conform the pleadings
to the proof with regard to minor variances, was granted. Opportunity was afforded all
parties to argue orally upon the record , and to file briefs and proposed findings and con-
clusions. After the hearing a brief was received from the Respondent.
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 RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Bar-Brook Manufacturing Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation
with its office and principal place of business in Shreveport, Louisiana, is engaged in the
business of manufacturing attic and window fans. During the year preceding the issuance
of the complaint, the Company received raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, of
which over 25 percent came from points outside the State of Louisiana. During the same
period the Respondent manufactured and sold finished products valued in excess of $200,000,
of which more than 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Louisiana. The
Respondent does not dispute that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local #79, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers
of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization ad-
mining to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Organization of the Respondent's employees into the Union began about the beginning
of May 1952, after a group of employees , led by Claude Blundell who had been a member
of the Union at a prior place of employment, called at the Union's office to obtain designation
cards. On May 16, 1952, Charles Trepagnier, the Union's international representative,
made a bargaining demand upon the Company . The Company insisted upon a Board certifi-
cation. On May 19, 1952, the Union filed with the Board a petition for certification, thus
initiating the representation proceeding in Case No. 15-RC-744, the history of which is
BAR-BROOK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 613
set forth in a subsequent section of this report. On the morning of May 21, 1952, employees
of the Respondent went out on strike, apparently for recognition . The strike lasted until
June 3, 1952, ending with the return of all employees to work. During the strike , unfair
labor practice charges were filed by the Union and the Respondent, each against the other.
The Union 's charge , filed May 23, 1952, alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8
(a) (1) since on or about May 20, 1952. That charge, which was subsequently amended on
February 19 , 1953, to add a refusal -to-bargain allegation , forms the basis of the complaint
in this proceeding . The Respondent's charge, filed May 27, 1952, and docketed as Case No,
15-CB-92, alleged that "since on or about May 21, 1952," the Union had "intimidated and
coerced employees of the Company to compel them to support ithe] Union in its actions
against the Company, particularly in its strike against the Company." On June 13, 1952,
the Regional Director administratively dismissed the Respondent 's charge for insufficient
evidence of violations and, on appeal to the General Counsel, his action was sustained.
Because the Company, unlike the Union, did not waive its charge as a basis for objecting
to the results of an election , the representation proceeding was held in abeyance while
the charge was still pending , in accordance with the Board 's usual procedures . Following
the dismissal of the Respondent 's charge, the representation proceeding was processed
to a conclusion , resulting in the Union's certification . The Company, however, has since
refused to bargain with the Union , upon grounds to be stated below.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion ,
Apart from the refusal -to-bargain aspect of the case, later to be considered , the General
Counsel's evidence was confined to the following four incidents of alleged interference, re-
straint, and coercion:
(a) James Draper, an employee of the Respondent in May 1952 but now no longer employed
by it, testified: In May 1952, on the Monday after the Friday that Charles Trepagnier called
on the Respondent to make the Union's bargaining demand, Draper was approached at his
place of work by M. H . Swor, the Respondent 's plant superintendent and now also its vice
president. Swor asked Draper if he were open for some fatherly advice. Draper stated that
he was. After hesitating a moment. Swor said, "Well, you know there is being a little move
made in the shop. We don't want it to materialize." Swor then went on to refer to a man in
town named Brown who, Swor stated, had got "mixed up in a little move like that" and as a
result had been unable to get work anywhere in town, being obliged finally to go to another
town where he went into business for himself.
Swor denied ever having had a conversation with Draper such as Swor testified to, and
further denied ever talking to Draper about the Union in any respect. He also testified that
he knew no one named Brown, nor any one else who had been unable to get work in town
because of his connection with a union. Despite Swor's denial, I credit Draper's testimony.
Draper, who appears to have left the Respondent's employ on friendly terms and who has
no apparent interest in the outcome of the case, impressed me as a witness careful of the
truth and meticulous in not enlarging his testimony beyond his actual memory of what
occurred. From my observation of him, I do not believe him one who might have fabricated
a story of this kind, and certainly he had no interest in doing so. Swor, on the other hand,
because of his position with the Respondent had an interest to protect, and certain other
aspects of his testimony reflect a tendency on his part to attempt to conform his statements
to what he considered the Respondent 's best defense . On the basis of my consideration of the
full testimony of both witnesses, and from my observation of their demeanor while testifying,
I am convinced, and I find, that Swor made the statements substantially as attributed to him
by Draper. I am persuaded that Swor intended, and Draper understood, the reference to the
"move" to relate to the Union's organizational efforts, and the reference to Brown to embody
a veiled threat that economic reprisals might be visited upon employees who supported the
union movement. I so find, and further find that the statements, in the context in which they
were made , constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(b) Claude V. Blundell, no longer employed by the Respondent but an employee in May 1952,
testified: At the beginning of the workday on May 21, 1952, about 2 hours before the strike
began, Swor approached him and the following conversation ensued:
Swor: Don't weld on that. I want to talk to you a minute.
Blundell : What is it?
Swor: This little move you got in here. Do you want to work here? If you want to work
here. I want you to get busy and help me combat and knock this move out. There is one
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fellow here (Davis) that went in for a little labor union and he had to leave town and go
to work. If you want to work , now, jump in and help me combat this and knock it out.
Blundell: I don't know what I have got to do with that. There is other fellows here, too.
Swor: I am telling you, you better jump in and help me knock it out.
Blundell : I can't do that. Wait a minute. Let me talk to you.
Swor : (walking off): That is all right then.
Swor denied that any such conversation had occurred . Swor testified that he spoke to
Blundell with reference to the Union on only 1 occasion , about 1 or 2 days before the strike.
Swor had heard , he testified , that threats were being made by union members against em-
ployees to compel them to join , and that Blundell was the leader of the union movement.
Consequently, according to his version, he went to Blundell and asked him "to see if he
couldn't keep the fellows from making threats," as he "didn 't want to see any violence , didn't
want to see anyone getting hurt ." Blundell replied , according to Swor, that he knew those
who had been making the threats and that he would speak to them and see to it that such
threats were discontinued , agreeing that the men had "to realize that they had to keep the
Company's interest at heart as well as that of the Union."
Blundell, on the other hand, denied that on the occasion in question , Swor had made any
mention of employees being threatened and intimidated.
Much of Swor's testimony left me unimpressed. His testimony as to bow he knew Blundell
to be a leader among union adherents was vague and evasive . So, too, was his testimony
concerning the threats and intimidation about which he says he heard. The record would
indicate that the Respondent 's concern over alleged threats, intunidation , and violence arose
after the strike began.,' As Blundell was apparently a leader in the strike activity, I think it
not unlikely that Swor may have spoken to Blundell about intimidation at that time. But I am
not convinced that he did so at the time he fixed in his testimony.
But while Swor's testimony left me skeptical, so did that of Blundell. Blundell was not a
completely forthright witness, as his denial of leadership in the Union, directly contradicted
by other witnesses for the General Counsel, plainly indicates. Part of his testimony, such as
his reference to "one fellow here that went in for a little labor union and he had to leave
town and go to work," seemed to me an added embellishment of his own, perhaps suggested
by what he had heard from Draper. If Swor had made the direct threat Blundell attributed to
him. I do not think he would have bothered to add a covert one. Moreover , if Swor knew
Blundell to be a leader of the Union, I do not think he would have come to Blundell to ask him
"to knock this move out." And if he did not, little reason appears why he should have asked
Blundell, a comparatively new employee , to assume the leadership in an antiunion drive.
Though I believe some conversation may have occurred between Blundell and Swor on the
morning of the strike, S am not persuaded that Blundell gave a fully truthful account of what
occurred , and since I have no means of separating what is true from what is not, I reject
all of it.
(c) Robert B. Reynolds, also a former employee of the Respondent, testified as follows:
During the first week of June 1952, Steiner, the Respondent 's foreman In charge of the
machine shop , called him in to discuss the Union with him. Sterner told Reynolds --aged 19
and on his first job--that he probably didn't have the experience that older people had,
mentioned to Reynolds that he (Steiner) had been "messed up in a union before ," and sug-
gested to him that he talk to his father about the Union before deciding what to do. Steiner
went on to tell Reynolds in substance that Mr. Barnes, the Respondent's president, was not
going to let anybody else tell him how to run the shop, and that before he let the Union come
in and run his business for him he would close down the shop.
Reynolds' testimony was undenied and is credited. I am unable to agree with the Respon-
dent's contention that Steiner 's otherwise unexplicated statement as to what Barnes would
do constituted the expression of an opinion privileged by Section 8 (c) of the Act. I find that
the intent and effect of the statement was to hold out the threat of a plant shutdown if the
Union were established as bargaining representative . This threat, made by a management
representative for whose conduct the Respondent is responsible, constituted , it is found,
an act of illegal restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1).
(d) Employee Raymond Moss testified that somewhere along about the first part of June 1952,
Superintendent Swor asked him " if anyone had approached [him] any more about joining the
iFor example , the 8 (b) (1) (A) charge filed by the Company alleges that "since on or
about May 21, 1952 [the date the strike began] said Union has intimidated and coerced
employees of the Company to support said Union in its actions against the company. par-
ticularly in its strike against the Company."
BAR-BROOK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 615
Union or something to that effect ," and had elicited from him a negative reply. On cross-
examination , Moss admitted that he had probably told Swor at one time that he was not in favor
of the Union. He also recalled that Swor told him at one time that he was free to Jour the Union
or not as be wished . And while he could not remember exactly when Moss told him this, he
conceded that it could have been during the same conversation in which Swor asked him the
question he testified to on direct examination . Swor did not deny asking that question of Moss,
but fixed the time as being on the first day of the strike. According to Swor, Moss asked Swor
on that occasion if he could continue working despite the strike , indicating that he had a
family to support and was opposed to the Union. Swor further testified that it was only after
Moss indicated to him that he was against the Union that he asked Moss if he had been
approached to join. Swor also testified that he told Moss in the course of that same conver-
sation that he was within his rights to join the Union if he wanted to. Moss was not recalled
by the General Counsel as a witness to rebut Swor's testimony'as to how he came to ask the
question and as to the additional matter mentioned in the same conversation. Since what Swor
added is not necessarily inconsistent with Moss ' testimony, and stands undenied, I accept
Swor 's testimony in that respect. Bearing in mind the context in which the question was
asked, the accompanying remarks , Moss' earlier disclosure of his position with regard to the
Union, and the fact that the questioning as far as it went did not seek information as to who
was doing the soliciting for the Union, I am not persuaded that Swor 's questioning of Moss,
standing as it does isolated in the record , is enough upon which to predicate a finding of
Illegal interrogation violative of Section 8 (a) (1). Accordingly, I find that the allegation of the
complaint, that the Respondent interrogated employees as to their own union activities and as
to the union activities of other employees , has not been sustained.
C. The refusal to bargain
On July 14, 1962, the Board issued aDecision and Direction of Election in Case No. 15-RC-
744, finding , among other things , that all production and maintenance employees at the Re-
spondent 's Shreveport , Louisiana, attic and window fan manufacturing plant , including the ship-
ping clerk , inventory clerk, and so-called "seasonal" employees, but excluding office clerical
employees , professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act. In Its decision , the Board considered , and rejected , the Respondent's
contention that certain extra employees hired to meet added production requirements and
called by the Respondent "seasonal employees " should be excluded from the appropriate unit.
On July 30. 1952, pursuant to the direction of election , an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region. Upon the
conclusion of the election , a tally of ballots was furnished to and certified by the observers
for the Union and the Respondent. The tally showed that of the approximately 41 eligible voters
in the appropriate unit, 40 voted and of these, 23 voted in favor of representation by the Union
and' 17 against.
On August 5, 1952, the Respondent filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election . and at the same time also objected to the Board 's decision enabling " temporary"
employees to participate in the election. In substance, the objections to the conduct affecting
the results of the election were that "employees were intiiriidated and coerced by threats
of violence uttered by picketing strikers , and that employees were coerced by mass picketing"
during a strike that the record here shows was conducted between May 21 and June 3. 1952.
The Regional Director, acting pursuant to Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Reg-
ulations, investigated the objections, and on September 15, 1952, issued his report on objec-
tions. With regard to the objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, the Regional
Director reported as follows:
On or about May 21, 1952, following a demand for bargaining by the Petitioner and the
filing of the petition herein, the employees of the Employer went on strike. On May 23,
1952, the Petitioner [Union] filed 8 (a) (1) charges which it waived for the purposes of the
instant proceeding . Thereafter , on May 27, 1952, the Employer filed 8 (b) (1) charges,
docketed as Case No. 15-CB-92, which it refused to waive. On or about June 3, 1952. the
strike was abandoned and all employees so desiring returned to work. The Employer's
charges were investigated and dismissed for lack of merit by the undersigned on June 13,
1952. The Employer appealed this dismissal, and on September 11, 1952. the General
Counsel sustained the dismissal.
The Regional Director declared it to be his opinion that:
291555 0 - 54 - 40
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this objection, based as it is on activities upon which the General Counsel has refused to
issue a complaint and in any event which occurred at least two months before the election
does not raise material issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the
election.
As to the Respondent 's additional objection relating to the alleged temporary employees, the
Regional Director reported:
... The Employer's position as to eligibility was fully litigated in the representation
hearing upon which the Board's Decision and Direction of Election was predicated.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Regional Director found that the Respondent 's objections
did not raise substantial or material issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the
election. He recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Union be certified.
On September 22, 1952, the Respondent filed with the Board exceptions to the Regional
Director's report. Thereafter, on October 30, 1952, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representatives. On the basis of its review of the Respondent 's objections,
the Regional Director's report, and the exceptions thereto, the Board ruled:
Allegation (1) [relating to the alleged union coercion] was the subject matter in a charge
in Case No. 15-CB-92 filed by the Employer. The Regional Director investigated the charge
and found no merit in the charge and refused to issue a complaint. The General Counsel
sustained the dismissal of the charge on appeal. The Board is not empowered to review the
General Counsel's refusal to issue a complaint. (Association of Motion Picture Producers
Inc., 88 NLRB 1155, and cases cited therein.) As noted by the Regional Director, the
matter of eligibility of the alleged "temporary" employees was fully litigated at the
hearing. We see no reason to change our decision in this matter. The Board accepts the
Regional Director's findings and concludes that the objections raise no substantial and
material issues with respect to the conduct of the election and they are hereby overruled.
The Board certified that the Union had been designated and selected by a majority of the
employees in the unit theretofore found by it to be appropriate as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was
the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions of employment.
On February 16, 1953, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain collectively with it as
the exclusive representative of the Respondent 's employees in the unit found appropriate
above . The Respondent refused, asserting that the Board's certification was invalid because
alleged temporary employees were included by the Board in the appropriate unit and allowed
to participate in the election, and further because of the matters set forth in its charge in
Case No. 15-CB-92. That is still the position of the Respondent. The Respondent has made no
additional contentions in this complaint proceeding , but has declared its purpose, as is Its
right, to test the validity of the Board's earlier determinations in the circuit court of ap-
peals. z
On the record as a whole, it is concluded and found that on February 16, 1953, and at all
times thereafter, the Union was, and now is, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of collective bargaining
2 At the hearing, the Respondent made an offer to prove in this proceeding the allegations
of the 8 (b) (i) (A) charge in Case No. 15-CB-92 which had previously been dismissed by
the General Counsel, and in that connection submitted certain letters and documents re-
lating to the processing of that charge. The offer of proof was rejected on the ground that
it was outside the issues of this proceeding and, moreover, concerned objections to the
election that had already been considered by the Board in the representation proceeding
and ruled upon by it adversely to the Respondent's position. The Respondent also offered
to prove that some 19 employees who were eligible to vote in the election had left the Re-
spondent's employ on various dates between July 30, 1952, and December 23, 1952. The
purpose of the offer, according to the Respondent, was to supply confirmation of the cor-
rectness of its contention before the Board in the representation proceeding with regard
to the alleged temporary employees the Board included in the unit. The Respondent con-
ceded, however, that the offer of proof related to an issue that had already been litigated
before the Board and finally disposed of by it in the representation proceeding. For that
reason, the offer of proof was rejected.
BAR-BROOK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 617
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment. It is further found that by refusing to bargain with the Union as such exclusive bargain-
mg representative on February 16, 1953, and thereafter, the Respondent violated Section 8
(a) (5) of the Act. By such conduct, the Respondent also interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, to the extent they have been
found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection 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 commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices , it will be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union,
the statutory representative of employees in the appropriate unit , it will be recommended that
the Respondent be ordered to bargain collectively with the Union and embody any under-
standing reached in a signed agreement.
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. Local # 79, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of
America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Shreveport, Louisiana,
attic and window fan manufacturing plant, including the shipping clerk, inventory clerk, and
so-called "seasonal" employees, but excluding the office clerical employees, professional
employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
3. On October 30, 1952, the above Union was, and at all times since has been, the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit on February 16, 1953, and thereafter, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5)
of the Act,
5. 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 engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The Respondent has not, as alleged in the complaint, engaged in unfair labor practices by
interrogating employees as to their union activities and as to the union activities of others;
by promising financial benefits to employees should the Union be brought in; and by soliciting
help in antiunion activity.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby
notify our employees that:
6 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join Local
#79, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of
America, AFL, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such
activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition or employment as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with the above -named labor organization
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein
with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment , or other conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our plant, including the shipping clerk,
inventory clerk, and so-called seasonal employees, but excluding the office clerical
employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of the
above-named union, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may
be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
BAR-BROOK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 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.
TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS, INC. and PAUL J. GASSERT,
ET AL.
TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS, INC. and WILLIAM G. BAUER
TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS, INC. and UNITED STEELWORK-
ERS OF AMERICA C. I.O. Cases Nos . 4-CA-118,4-CA-277,
and 4 -CA-343 . June 17, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On November 5, 1951 , the Board issued its Decision and
Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom , and take certain affirmative action. Among the
unfair labor practices found to have been committed by the
Respondent was its discriminatory refusal to employ 85 former
employees , herein called discriminatees , in vion of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act. As a defense to the allegations of the
complaint that the refusal to employ the discriminatees violated
196 NLRB 1333.
105 NLRB No. 77.