Council Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 298 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to iefrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to join or assist any labor organization, and to engage
in any self-organization or any concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from such activities.
FRANK C. VARNEY CO, INC.,
Employer.
bated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614
National Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, Telephone No.
Market 4-6151, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Council Manufacturing Corp. and International Union, Allied
Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 26-CA-
1782. February 26, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 30, 1964, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Decision in the above-entitled case, 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 attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision
and a brief in support of the exceptions. The General Counsel filed
a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's
Decision and the entire record in the case, including the exceptions
and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner as herein modified.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner as modified herein, and orders that
IIn view of our other findings in this case and the limited nature of the alleged
violation of Section 8(a)(5), we find it unnecessary to pass upon that allegation of the
complaint as our Order adequately remedies such a violation even if found.
151 NLRB No. 39.
COUNCIL MANUFACTURING CORP. 299
the Respondent, Council Manufacturing Corp., Fort Smith, Arkan-
sas. its officers, agents, successors, and a ssigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Order with the following inodifi-
cations :
1. Paragraph 1(f) of the Order shall read as follows:
"(f) Making changes in such employee benefits and working con-
ditions as free coffee, smoking on the job, rest periods, and like and
related matters to discourage membership in or activity on behalf
,of the said Union."
2. Paragraph 2(d) of the Order is omitted and 2(e) and 2(f) are
respectively designated as 2(d) and 2(e).
3. Add the following to paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order :
"Notify them if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces."
4. The sixth indented paragraph in the notice is deleted with the
following to be substituted therefor :
WE WILL NOT make changes in such employee benefits and
working conditions as free coffee, smoking on the job, rest
periods, and like and related matters to discourage membership
in or activity on behalf of the Union.
5. The 10th indented paragraph is omitted in the notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those allegations of the complaint
alleging violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act be, and they hereby
are, dismissed.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
At issue in this case is whether Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and
(5) of the Act.1 This case arises upon a motion by the General Counsel for judg-
ment on the pleadings. This motion followed the filing of Respondent's amended
answer, in which Respondent admitted the allegations of almost all of the complaint.
Unless otherwise stated, the findings and conclusions herein are based upon the com-
plaint 2 as admitted in the answer. The General Counsel and Respondent filed help-
ful briefs which have been carefully considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, with its principal office and plants located at Fort Smith, Arkansas,
is engaged in the manufacture of ice-dispensing equipment. During the 12 months
prior to the issuance of the complaint Respondent purchased and received at its
I The Act herein refers to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U S C
Sec. 151 , et seq.
2 The first amended charge was filed by the Union on April 3, 1964 The second
amended charge was filed by the Union on April 27, 1964. The complaint was Issued
May 5, 1964.
300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fort Smith, Arkansas, plants, directly from points outside the State of Arkansas,
products and materials valued in excess of $50,000, and during the same period
Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000
from it Fort Smith, Arkansas, plants, directly to points outside the State of Arkansas.
Respondent now is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union , Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Through its president, Dansby Council, its secretary, Mrs. Dansby Council, and a
foreman, John Tindell, on January 15 and March 16, 1964, at Respondent's northside
plant, and on March 16, 1964,3 at Respondent's southside plant (both plants being
in Fort Smith, Arkansas), Respondent unlawfully interrogated its employees con-
cerning employee union membership, activities, and desires, Respondent thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Through its president, on or about March 16 at its northside plant, Respondent
promised an employee a wage increase to discourage him from becoming or remaining
a member of the Union or giving assistance or support to the Union, Respondent
thereby interfering with, restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
Through its plant engineer and foreman, John T. Corbell, on or about March 19
at its northside plant, Respondent advised an employee that Respondent would never
enter into a collective-bargaining agreement, Respondent thereby further interfering
with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights,
Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Through its fore-
man, Jack M. Price, on or about February 27 at its northside plant, Respondent
threatened its employees with reduction in hours of work and discontinuance of the
privilege of using Respondent's property for personal use if they selected the Union
as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining, Respondent thereby
further interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights, thereby further violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. The discriminatory discharges
On or about March 19 and April 6 and 7, Respondent laid off its employee James
C. Young because he joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other union or con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, Respondent thereby discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms
or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization and thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Respondent laid off or discharged its employee Berlin V. Lokey on or about April 1
and thereafter failed and refused to recall or reinstate him, and continues to fail
and refuse to recall or reinstate him, because he joined or assisted the Union or
engaged in other union or concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, Respondent thereby further discriminating in regard
to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization, and thereby violating Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
C. The unilateral changes in working conditions and benefits
On March 19, the day after the Union won a collective-bargaining election,
Respondent unilaterally, without notice to, consultation with, or collective bargaining
with the Union, changed the following working conditions and benefits at its Fort
Smith, Arkansas, plants: It discontinued serving free coffee to its employees at its
northside plant; it prohibited employees from smoking on the job; at its southside
plant it reduced rest periods from two 15-minute rest periods a day to two 10-minute
rest periods a day and prohibited employees from discussing the Union during rest
periods. Respondent admitted that it made these unilateral changes the day after the.
$ All events herein occurred during 1964.
COUNCIL MANUFACTURING CORP. 301
election; but as the election was very close and as the one challenged ballot was
determinative of the outcome, Respondent contended in substance that it had no duty
to bargain with the Union until the challenge was ruled upon and the Union certified
sometime later.4
Respondent admitted that these unilateral changes were a violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act but denied they were a violation of Section 8(a)(5).
The question is whether they were also a violation of Section 8(a)(5).
As has been seen above, 2 days before the election Respondent unlawfully inter-
rogated employees and promised economic benefits in an obvious effort to influence
the results of the election. Earlier it had threatened employees with economic
reprisal if they selected the Union as the bargaining agent. And on March 19, the day
of the unilateral changes, Respondent told an employee that Respondent would never
enter into a collective-bargaining agreement. From all of this, and the timing of the
unilateral changes made the day after the election, it appears and I conclude that
Respondent made the unilateral changes not only in reprisal against the employees'
selection at the polls of the Union as their collective-bargaining agent, but also to
weaken the Union for collective-bargaining purposes. Thus the unilateral action
would reasonably tend to cause employees to have second thoughts about their selec-
tion of the Union as their bargaining agent and to weaken any resolve they had to
make certain demands at the collective-bargaining negotiations. It is no answer to
.say that as the one challenged ballot remained to be ruled upon Respondent was not
.certain the Union had won the election and so acted only in reprisal but with no
thought to the possibility of its unilateral action upon collective-bargaining negotia-
tions. Its motivation was clear although the certainty that it would have to bargain
with the Union was not. Under all the circumstances of this case I hold that by the
'unilateral action Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) as well as Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) which it admitted. See Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation, 129 NLRB 1166,
affirmed 371 U.S. 224; International Powder Metallurgy Company, Inc., 134 NLRB
1605; Zelrich Company, 144 NLRB 1381; May Department Stores v. N.L.R.B., 326
U.S. 376, 383-385; Armstrong Cork Company v. N.L.R.B., 211 F. 2d 843 (C.A. 5).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations with 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 Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth
above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As stated in Respondent's reply to the General Counsel's motion for summary
judgment, and as in effect conceded by the General Counsel in his opposition to
Respondent's reply, on May 5, some 7 weeks after unilaterally depriving employees of
certain working conditions and benefits as found above, Respondent restored all these
working conditions and benefits to employees.
Thereafter, on or about July 22, Respondent started to fulfill its statutory duty by
beginning to negotiate concerning wages, hours, and other conditions of employment
with the Union as the collective-bargaining agent of the employees; and, as Respond-
ent in substance contended and the General Counsel conceded, at the time Respond-
.ent's reply was dated , September 4, the bargaining sessions between the Respondent
and the Union were continuing. However, there is no showing that a collective-
bargaining agreement has yet been attained. As of about November 14, 1964, when
Respondent's brief was prepared, apparently no contract had been achieved.
* I take official notice that in Case No 26-RC-2117, at the election conducted by
the Regional Director on March 18, of approximately 93 eligible voters, 46 voted for the
Union, 45 voted against the Union, and 1 ballot was challenged. By Board order the
challenged ballot was opened and counted on July 1G and the revised tally of ballots
showed 47 votes for the Union and 45 votes against the Union. The Union was certified
on July 22. The appropriate unit consists of all production and maintenance employees
employed at Respondent's Fort Smith, Arkansas, plants, including employees who perform
maintenance and installation work on Respondent's products outside the plants, excluding
office clerical and professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As Respondent's unlawful unilateral deprivation of certain benefits and working
conditions has been only partially remedied by the restoration of the benefits and con-
ditions on May 5,5 I recommend that Respondent cease and desist from a repetition of
unlawful unilateral activity and that it notify and upon request bargain with the
Union concerning any contemplated changes in such employee benefits and working
conditions as free coffee, smoking on the job, rest periods, and like and related matters.
Respondent having unlawfully laid off its employee James C. Young and having
unlawfully laid off or discharged its employee Berlin V. Lokey, and it not appearing
that either of these employees has ever been offered reinstatement, I recommend
that Respondent offer to Young and Lokey immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions 6 without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges and make each whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of
layoff or discharge (March 19, April 6 and 7 in the case of Young, and April 1 in the
case of Lokey), the date of the discrimination against him, to the date when, pur-
suant to the Recommended Order herein, Respondent shall offer him reinstatement,
less his net earnings during said period (Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440,
497-498), said backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. The backpay obligation of
Respondent shall include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum
to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 138
NLRB 716. As provided in Woolworth, I recommend further that Respondent make
available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records in order to facilitate
the checking of the amount of backpay due.
The violations of the Act committed by Respondent are persuasively related to other
unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and the danger of their commission in
the future is to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive
purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the Order is coextensive with the threat.
In order, therefore, to make more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section
7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial
strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the
Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infring-
ing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Council Manufacturing Corp. of Fort Smith, Arkansas, is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their union membership,
activities, and desires; by promising an employee a wage increase to discourage him
from becoming or remaining a member of the above-named Union or giving assistance
or support to the Union; by advising an employee that Respondent would never enter
into a collective-bargaining agreement; by threatening employees with reduction in
hours of work and discontinuance of the privilege of using Respondent's property for
personal use if they selected the above-named Union as their representative for the
purposes of collective-bargaining; and by other acts, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of James C.
Young and Berlin V. Lokey, thereby discouraging membership in International Union,
Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1)
of the Act.
5. By unilaterally changing certain employee benefits and working conditions,
without notice to, consultation with, or collective bargaining with the above-named
Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate unit at
Respondent's Fort Smith , Arkansas, plants, thereby depriving the employees of cer-
tain working conditions and benefits, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5), (3),
and (1) of the Act.
5It is settled law that the discontinuance of unfair labor practices does not dis,ipate
their effect and does not obviate the need for a remedial order United Steel Workers
of America, AFL-CIO (Wright Line Division of Barry Wright Corpo) ation), 146 NLRB 71
0The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Blanch,
65 NLRB 827.
COUNCIL MANUFACTURING CORP. 303,
6. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case considered as a whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I recommend that Council Manufacturing Corp., of Fort Smith, Arkan-
sas, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall.
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, Allied Industrial Workers
of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees , by dis-
criminating in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment or any team or
condition of employment.
(b) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their union membership,
activities , and desires.
(c) Promising employees a wage increase to discourage them from becoming or
remaining a member of the above -named Union or giving assistance or support to
said Union.
(d) Advising employees that it would never enter into a collective -bargaining
agreement
(e) Threatening employees with reduction in hours of work and discontinuance
of the privilege of using its property for personal use if they selected the above-
named Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(f) Unilaterally , without notice to, consultation with, and collective bargaining
with the above -named Union , changing employee benefits and working conditions
such as free coffee, smoking on the job, rest periods, and like and related matters.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer reinstatement to James C . Young and Berlin V. Lokey in accordance
with the recommendations set forth in "The Remedy" herein.
(b) Make whole James C. Young and Berlin V. Lokey for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them in accord-
ance with the recommendations set forth in "The Remedy" herein.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze the amount
of backpay due and the rights of James C. Young and Berlin V. Lokey under the
terms of these recommendations.
(d) Give notice to, and upon request consult with and bargain with , the above-
named Union for all employees in the appropriate unit concerning any contemplated
changes in such employee benefits and working conditions as free coffee, smoking
on the job, rest periods, and like and related matters. The appropriate unit consists
of all production and maintenance employees at Respondent 's Fort Smith , Arkansas,
plants, including employees who perform maintenance and installation on Respond-
ent's products outside the plants, excluding office clerical and professional employ-
ees, guards , watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(e) Post at its plants in Fort Smith , Arkansas , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A " 7 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Board 's Region 26 (Memphis , Tennessee ), shall, after being signed
by the representative of Respondent , be posted by Respondent and maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to all employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
I In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
.other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has
:taken to comply herewith.8
8 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, In writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Union, Allied Indus-
trial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization by dis-
criminating against our employees in any manner in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership, activities, and desires.
WE WILL NOT promise employees a wage increase to discourage them from
becoming or remaining a member of the above-named Union or giving assist-
ance or support to said Union.
WE WILL NOT advise employees that we will never enter into a collective-
bargaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reduction in hours of work and dis-
continuance of the privilege of using Responr'ent's property for personal use if
they select the above-named Union as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT, concerning employees in the appropriate unit, make any
future changes involving such employee benefits and working conditions as
free coffee, smoking on the job, rest periods, and like and related matters, with-
out first giving notice to and consulting and bargaining with the above-named
Union. The appropriate unit consists of:
All production and maintenance employees at our Fort Smith, Arkansas,
plants, including employees who perform maintenance and installation work
on our products outside the plants, excluding office clerical and profes-
sional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to James C. Young and Berlin V. Lokey immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
-regard to their seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole James C. Young and Berlin V. Lokey for any loss of
pay suffered by them by reason of the discrimination practiced against them in
accordance with the recommendations of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
WE WILL give the above-named Union, as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of the employees in the appropriate unit, notice of, and upon request bar-
gain with the Union concerning any contemplated changes in such employee
benefits and working conditions as free coffee, smoking on the job, rest periods,
and like and related matters.
All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming members of the
.above-named labor organization.
COUNCIL MANUFACTURING CORP.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) ( Title)
APEX LINEN SERVICE OF COLUMBUS, INC. 305
NoTE.-We will notify James C. Young and Berlin V . Lokey if they are presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act, and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 746 Fed-
eral Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee , Telephone No.
534-3161 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or if they have infor-
mation that its provisions are being violated.
Apex Linen Service of Columbus, Inc. and Laundry, Dry Cleaning
and Linen Workers International Union , Local 218. Case No.
10-CA-5547. February 26, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 27, 1964, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices vio-
lative of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief and Respondent filed a cross-excep-
tion and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The Board has considered the Decision, the exceptions, the cross-
exception and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as
its Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders
that Respondent , Apex Linen Service of Columbus, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
151 NLRB No. 34.
783-133-66-vol. 151-21