Duo-Bed Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 1504 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
store who were represented by the Intervenor. This contract ended
in January 1963, and the parties thereafter bargained on a multi-
store basis and executed u new multistore contract covering all meat
department employees , including Jesup's. This contract was made
effective retroactively to the date of termination of the prior contract.
As the Board has previously pointed out , Section 9 (c) (1) (A) of
the Act, which authorizes decertification petitions , "was designed to
provide a method for determining whether an existing unit of em-
ployees desire to continue their current representation , and the Board
is required to conduct an election thereunder only when a question
is raised concerning such current representation in the existing unit." 9
Clearly, the existing unit is not the certified one and the currently
represented unit is apparently the multistore unit embracing Jesup
employees . While the Jesup employees were once separately rep-
resented for a short period of time-the meat department by the
Intervenor and the other employees by the Retail Clerks-multistore
contracts with the Intervenor and Retail Clerks have covered those
employees since May 1962. As a result, the preexisting unit of Jesup
employees which had been represented by the Retail Clerks, like
that represented by the Intervenor , has been merged into a nzulti-
store unit . A unit confined to the Jesup store employees represented
by the Retail Clerks is therefore too limited in scope and inappro-
priate for purposes of a decertification election.
The petition should be dismissed.
6 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 115 NLRB 530
Duo-Bed Corporation and Teamsters Union Local 795, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , and Upholsterers
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Case No.
17-CA-2182. February 5, 19611
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 18, 1963, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his De-
cision 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 attached Trial Examiner's De-
cision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and a. supporting brief.'
1 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record , including
the exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
145 NLRB No. 144.
DUO-BED CORPORATION 1505,
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this case, including the
Respondent's exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner .2
2 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein the following paragraph:
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 Respondent , its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
The appendix attached to the Decision is hereby amended by adding the following immedi-
ately below the signature line at the bottom of the notice:
NOTE -We will notify the above -named employee if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of her 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
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by the Charging Parties on May 4 and July 29, 1963, the
General Counsel on August 8, 1963 , issued a complaint alleging that the Respondent,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, had interrogated employees concerning
their concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection and had discharged
Betty R. Dickerson for engaging in such activities. The Respondent filed an
answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices . The case was heard
before Trial Examiner Owsley Vose at Wichita, Kansas , on September 17, 1963.
The General Counsel and the Respondent appeared and were represented at the
hearing, and were afforded a full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to present oral argument. The filing of briefs was waived.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS
The Respondent has its principal office and place of business at Wichita , Kansas,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of hotel furniture , draperies, bedspreads,
and related products . The Respondent annually ships more than $50,000 worth
of finished products to customers located outside Kansas. Upon these facts I find
that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and
that it is appropriate for the Board to assert jurisdiction.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events culminating in Dickerson 's discharge
In January 1963, the Charging Parties commenced a joint organizing drive among
the Respondent's employees but it was apparently not successful and before long
734-0 70-64-v of 14 5-9 6
1506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all organizing activity came to a standstill . However, interest in a pay raise for
the employees in the sewing department remained at a high level. In their con-
versations with one another the subject of a pay raise for the girls was a frequent
topic of discussion.
Betty R. Dickerson, one of the employees in the sewing department, spoke to
Frank D. Minter, the supervisor in the sewing department, several times in February
and March 1963 about the possibility of a merit raise for the girls in the depart-
ment. Minter's usual reply, according to his testimony , was that he would have
to look into the matter.
On the morning of April 2, 1963, Dickerson engaged in a conversation about pay
raises with employees Mary Petersen and Lillian Alvarez as they sat at their work
stations before the workday began. Petersen expressed the view that this was not
i propitious moment to ask Minter for a raise, and explained that Minter was hav-
ing difficulty with the work and was too busy at that time. Dickerson proposed
preparing a petition and submitting it to the office in an effort to persuade manage-
ment to consider the employees ' desire for a wage increase . Petersen was luke-
warm to this proposal and Alvarez was frankly opposed. Nevertheless, Dickerson,
on the spur of the moment , decided to prepare such a petition . Just before the
morning bell rang, Dickerson hastily printed in ink on a piece of note paper the
following statement:
We the women of the Sewing Dept.
hereby petition Management for a
100 per hour raise that is long
over due.
Below this text was placed a large irregular seven-sided figure with crossed lines
through the middle, which was intended to provide space for the employees to
sign their names without revealing the order in which they signed. Below this
figure and on the back of the paper were listed reasons for granting a merit increase.'
During the morning break Dickerson gave the petition to Petersen, who placed it
upon Lilliam Alvarez' desk without signing it. Alvarez did not sign the petition
either, but passed it on down the line. Five of the ten to twelve employees in the
department signed the petition , including Dickerson.
After she had started circulating the petition, Dickerson went up and spoke to
Supervisor Minter at his desk between the two sewing rooms. Dickerson asked
Minter if he would recommend a merit raise for the girls in her department . Minter's
answer was that "he would not turn in a raise because it would not do any good
at this time."
Later in the day two of the signers of the petition, Frances Roach and Helen Reid,
heard that the petition had been discussed with Mabel Morris , an employee in the
other sewing room whom they regarded as being unduly sympathetic with manage-
ment. These two girls came to Dickerson and said, "Tear the petition up, Mabel
knows about it, or we will get into trouble ." Dickerson complied with their
request, and kept the torn pieces of paper in her purse. (At the hearing the torn
scraps of paper were pieced together and the assembled document, with two pieces
missing, was received in evidence in this case .) As she tore up the petition , Dicker-
son told the girls who had signed it that she would rewrite the petition in letter
form, couch it in more tactful terms, and address it both to Frank Minter, their
supervisor, and to management.
The same day Peterson and Alvarez, who had not signed the petition, went to
Supervisor Minter and informed him that a petition was being circulated. As
Petersen credibly testified , they suggested that perhaps "it would be wise to . .
talk to the girls and tell them the reasons why he couldn 't give [them ] a raise and
that maybe that would stop this . . . before it got started ." Petersen went on to
say, "Frank , you know everyone wants a raise . We have been here ^a long time,
and if anybody gets one, we feel we deserve one." Minter replied, "We 'll see what
we can do about it." During this conversation Minter asked Petersen if she
"would tell him who wrote it [the petition]." She refused to tell him.
Thereafter, Minter approached Dorothy Cohorn, who worked part time in the
sewing department, and asked her if she "knew anything about the petition that was
being circulated , if [she] had seen it." When Cohorn admitted that she had seen
it, Minter inquired "if [she] had signed it." Cohorn informed Minter that she had
not. Minter then commented , "Well, Dorothy, you know this is no way to get a
raise."
'These were: (1) the increased cost of living; (2) the long period (I i6 years) since the
last merit increase ; and (3) the employees ' loyalty in standing by the Respondent during
its financial difficulties.
DUO-BED CORPORATION 1507
On the evening of April 2-the day on which the petition was prepared and
later torn up-Dickerson drafted and typed a second petition which presented essen-
tially the same arguments in favor of a wage increase as the first, but which was
expressed more diplomatically . Dickerson placed the second petition in a mail order
catalog and brought it to the plant in the catalog the, next morning . Dickerson had
numerous discussions with other employees on April 3 and early on April 4 con-
cerning what to do about the second petition . A few employees apparently favored
going ahead with the second petition , others opposed, and no decision was reached
on the, ultimate disposition of this petition . No employee signed it.
On the morning of April 4 Art Rogers, one of the Respondent 's foremen, engaged
in a conversation with Dickerson in the plant . In the course of this conversation
Dickerson commented about Minter's refusal to do anything about obtaining raises
for the girls in her department . In reply Rogers stated that he had been getting
raises for the men in his department right along.
Shortly after this conversation with Foreman Rogers, Dickerson observed Minter
nearby and again asked him if he would put in a request for a raise for the girls
in her department . When Minter declared that no raises were being given at all,
Dickerson disputed this, stating that if that were true "some of the foremen around
here are the biggest liars that ever lived. " In response Minter said that if he could
show her the records , he could prove the truth of what he was saying . Dickerson
replied that she would "shut [ her] mouth" if he could prove it. At this point Minter
commented , "It's too late for that, it 's gone too far." Dickerson pointed out that the
employees had stood by the Company when it was in financial difficulty and urged
that the Company , now that it was back on its feet, should come forward with the
raises which the employees had been denied because of the Company 's financial
troubles. Dickerson went on to say that she did not believe the Company had been
fair as far as her wages had been concerned , and pointed out, among other things,
that she had been required to help train newly hired girls who were being paid 10
cents per hour more than she was earning. Minter said, "If you feel the company
has done you so dirty, why don't you quit ." Dickerson rejoined, "I am not about
to quit," and added that Minter "could fire [her] but that is the only way he could
get rid of [ her]." Admittedly , Dickerson was angry at Minter at this point . Minter
admittedly replied, "Well, if that is the way you feel about it, you leave me no
choice" and left Dickerson 's workplace.
A few minutes later Minter came back and told Dickerson that her check was
waiting for her in the personnel office. As she was gathering up her belongings
Dickerson took the second petition from the catalog and handed it to Minter, say-
ing, "Here, this is what you paid your pet rat to tell you." Minter declared, "I
don't know what you are talking about ." Dickerson continued , "If you want me to
name her, it 's Mabel Morris ." Minter's reply was, "Why, now she didn 't tell me,
it was a process of elimination . I suspected you but didn 't know until this moment
for sure." 2
B. Subsequent events
Later in the day after Dickerson had been discharged , Mary Petersen asked Minter,
"Frank, how did you know Betty had the petition?" Minter answered , "I didn't
until she gave it to me." Minter also stated in the course of this conversation that
"it was against company policies ... to circulate a petition ." Madeline Robinson
had a similar conversation with Minter shortly after Dickerson 's discharge . She also
asked Minter "how he knew that Betty was the one who had the petition ." Minter's
response was as follows: "I didn't know until she gave it to me. I just put two and
two together " 3
In the week following her discharge Dickerson visited the office of the unemploy-
ment compensation board and spoke with one of the representatives there. This
representative informed Dickerson that the reason given by the Respondent for her
2 For the most part the testimony above -quoted concerning Minter's final conversations
with Dickerson is that of Dickerson Minter, in contrast with Dickerson 's testimony to
the effect that she asked for a rake for the girls in her department, testified that Dickerson
had opened the conversation by asking "if she was going to get a raise ." Aside from this,
however , Minter's version does not differ materially from Dickerson's Except as above
indicated , Minter did not deny any of the details of the conversation recited above Since
Dickerson at the very time she was talking to Minter was engaged in promoting a petition
to obtain a wage increase for all of the girls , I find unlikely that she would have asked
for an increase for herself alone Under all the circumstances, I credit Dickerson ' s version
and find the facts to be as stated in the text above
3 The foregoing findings a i e -based on the uncontradicted testimony of Petersen and
Robinson
1508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge was "excessive absenteeism." When she disputed the validity of such an
explanation, this representative added, "Well, if you must know, they also had you
listed as a troublemaker."
About this same time Dickerson telephoned Robert Warren, the Respondent's per-
sonnel manager, and inquired about receiving prorated vacation pay. (In I more
month Dickerson would have been entitled to a vacation for a full year's work.)
Warren replied that he would call her and let her know. A week later, having heard
nothing further from Warren in the meantime, Dickerson called him back at the
plant. Warren informed her that he had looked into the matter and found out that
the Company was not obligated Ito pay her any vacation pay. After expressing her
dissatisfaction with this turn of events, Dickerson asked Warren "why he turned
[her] in as a troublemaker to the unemployment office." When Warren expressed
,surprise, Dickerson queried him, "Well, if you didn't turn me in as one who did?"
Warren replied that he had merely turned in Frank Minter's statement. She sought
to find out the contents of Minter's statement, but they were not made available to
her. In the ensuing conversation, which was rather lengthy, Dickerson expressed her
resentment against having been "fired unjustly" and "turned . . . in as a trouble-
maker." Warren offered to attempt to have the record at the unemployment com-
pensation board straightened out so as to eliminate the reference to her as a
"troublemaker."
C. The Respondent's contentions; conclusions
Admittedly Dickerson was discharged by Supervisor Minter upon the basis of a
decision made by Minter upon his own initiative during the conversation with Dicker-
son on the morning of April 4. When asked by his attorney at the hearing, "Why did
you fire Mrs. Dickerson," Minter replied, "She asked me to. She practically de-
manded that I fire her." Admittedly, Minter had no intention of discharging Dicker-
son when she started the conversation with him on April 4. Minter did add, how--
ever, that he was under the assumption that Dickerson was going to quit anyway
when school was out because she did not like to work when it was hot. At another
point in his testimony Minter stated that he had been told by others (not Dickerson)
that such were Dickerson's intentions. There is no contention made that the quality
of Dickerson's work had anything to do with her discharge.
Although Minter did not testify that Dickerson's absenteeism played a part in
his decision to discharge her, he did state that several of the girls had complained
about Dickerson being off from work so much and that he had criticized Dickerson
"in a very nice way that she should not be off as much as she was unless she had
a good reason for it."
While admitting that he was aware that a petition was being circulated prior to
Dickerson's discharge, Minter denied knowing that Dickerson had anything to do
with circulating it. Minter also testified that the fact that a petition was being cir-
culated had nothing to do with Dickerson's discharge For the reasons set forth below
I do not credit Minter's testimony in this regard for I do not consider it consistent
with the undisputed facts of the case and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom..
The uncontradicted testimony of Dorothy Cohorn and Mary Petersen shows that
Minter disapproved of concerted attempts by employees to obtain improved wages,
hours, or working conditions. The record also shows that Minter suspected that
Dickerson was responsible for the circulation of a petition. Thus, after her discharge
Minter told Dickerson that he suspected her of being behind the petition, but had not
known for sure until she handed him the petition. This is Dickerson's uncontradicted
testimony, which is corroborated by that of Madeline Robinson who testified with-
out contradiction to the effect that Minter had told her after Dickerson's discharge-
that he had not known definitely until Dickerson gave it to him "that she was the one
that had the petition," but that he had "just put two and two together."
Dickerson was abruptly discharged in the course of a discussion with Minter in
which she was vigorously pressing her request for a wage increase for the girls, which
was the subject of the petition. Minter's remark to Dickerson at the time-"if she
was so unhappy with the wages and conditions why didn't she quit"-plainly reveals
his desire to get rid of Dickerson
Minter's explanation for Dickerson's discharge, that she had practically demanded
it, scarcely withstands scrutiny. Far from inviting a discharge, Dickerson was mak-
ing known as forcefully as she could that she wanted to hang onto her job, that the
only way the employment relationship would be terminated would be by the action of
the Respondent. Minter, in my opinion, chose to interpret Dickerson's comment as
an invitation to discharge her because he was so eager to get rid of her. Unon all
of the facts of the case, I conclude that Minter would not have reacted in this fashion
DUO-BED CORPORATION 1509
and summarily dismissed an otherwise satisfactory employee 4 had he not suspected
that Dickerson was a leader in the concerted activity which he knew was then going
on in the plant.5
It is the position of the Respondent that discussions among the employees of their
desire for wage increases were common in the plant , as were requests to the Respond-
ent to grant wage increases , and that in these circumstances it is unreasonable to at-
tribute Dickerson 's discharge to her efforts to obtain a wage increase . While it is
true that discussions among the employees themselves of their desire for a wage in-
crease were frequent , these desires were not made known to the Respondent except
upon a strictly individual basis. The record shows that the employees sought to keep
all actions of a concerted nature under cover and that they feared the consequences of
having engaged in concerted activities becoming known to the Respondent until they
succeeded in obtaining widespread participation by the employees . For these reasons
I must reject the Respondent 's contention in this regard . The Respondent further
contends that Minter believed that Dickerson intended to quit in 2 months and that
this was a contributing factor in his decision to discharge her. Even if Minter had
had an adequate factual basis for this conclusion as to Dickerson 's intentions, I am
convinced that at most this was a very minor factor in his decision , and that Dickerson
would not have been discharged but for Minter 's suspicion that she was the em-
ployee who was responsible for circulating the petition . Under all the circumstances,
I conclude that the Respondent 's discharge of Dickerson on April 4, 1963, was viola-
tive of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent by discharging Betty R. Dickerson because it suspected she was
circulating a petition relating to wages, hours, or working conditions in the plant,
and by questioning employees about the preparation , circulation , and signing of the
-petition , has thereby engaged in interference , restraint , and coercion of employees
in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or
protection , in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
My Recommended Order will contain the conventional remedial provisions for the
unfair labor practices found, namely that the Respondent cease and desist from its
unfair labor practices , that it reinstate Dickerson with backpay , computed in accord-
ance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716, and that it post appropriate notices.
4 While Minter mentioned Dickerson ' s alleged absenteeism in his testimony , the record
as a whole does not support the conclusion that this was a factor of any significance in
Dickerson's discharge Absenteeism was not mentioned to her at the time of her discharge
It does not appear that Dickerson was criticized when she returned aftei her last absence,
2 weeks before her discharge , although she overstayed her leave 1 day without calling in
promptly . At the hearing Dickerson testified that she became ill while on leave I con-
clude that Dickerson ' s alleged absenteeism was an afterthought , arrived at by Minter when
he was considering reasons for her discharge to give to the unemployment compensation
board.
s Support for this conclusion is found also in Dickerson 's testimony that the representa-
tive of the unemployment compensation board informed her that the Respondent had
stated as an additional reason for Dickerson ' s discharge that she was a "troublemaker."
No effort was made by the Respondent at the hearing to substantiate this contention On
the record in this case , the only actions of Dickerson which conceivably could be regarded
by the Respondent as troublesome to it were her efforts to obtain a wage increase for the
girls in her department , both by circulating the petitions and by personally urging that
Minter recommend such increases . It is recognized that Dickerson 's testimony relied upon
in this connection is hearsay . However, in view of Dickerson ' s undenied testimony con-
cerning her subsequent conversations with Personnel Manager Warren in which she com-
plained about the Respondent 's reporting her to the unemployment compensation board as
a "troublemaker ," Warren's promise to attempt to correct the record in this respect. and
in view of the fact that the Respondent had it within its power , by furnishing copies of
the documents given the unemployment compensation board , to establish the exact nature
of its representations to that board and failed to do so , I find it reasonable to give weight
to Dickerson 's testimony in this regard as one of the hits of evidence casting light on
Minter's motives in discharging Dickerson . See Diaz v . United States , 223 U S 442, 450.
1510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The unfair labor practices herein found, including the discharge of an employee
for engaging in activities protected by the Act, are such as to indicate an attitude of
opposition to the purposes of the Act generally. In these circumstances a broad
cease-and-desist provision is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Duo-Bed Corporation, Wichita, Kansas, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors. and assigns, shall.
1. Cease and desist from discharging or taking other retaliatory action against em-
ployees engaging in or suspected of engaging in, concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, from questioning em-
ployees about such activities, and in any manner interfering with. restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following -affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act
(a) Reinstate Betty R. Dickerson to her former or a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her
whole in the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination or copying, all payroll and other records relevant to a determination
of the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at its plant in Wichita, Kansas, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Seventeenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notice are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of
this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 7
GIn the event thiit this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Recommended 01 der of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order he 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"
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
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order 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.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual air or protection, either by discharging employees
engaging in or suspected of engaging in such activities, by questioning employ-
ees about employee petitions to management, or in any other manner.
WE WILL immediately reinstate Betty R. Dickerson with backpay.
DUO-BED CORPORATION,
Employer
Dated------------------- 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.
MISCELLANEOUS WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC., LOCAL 986 1511
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional office, 1200
Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue , Kansas City , Missouri, Telephone No. Balti-
more 1-700 , Extension 2732, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Miscellaneous Warehousemen , Drivers and Helpers , Local 986,.
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America [Tak-Trak, Inc.]
and Mrs . Edwin Selvin , Labor Relations Consultant. Case No.
21-CB-2046. February 5, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 5, 1963, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer 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 attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party
each filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members
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 In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
Our dissenting colleague would find that Respondent's threats and
picketing were solely in support of its contract demands, and would
reverse the Trial Examiner's conclusion that they were also aimed
at bringing about Selvin's ouster as the Company's bargaining agent.
In our view the Trial Examiner's conclusion is warranted by the
evidence, and we therefore adhere to it.
The Respondent's letter of February 14 not only outlined its policy
of opposition to "the usual antiunion program which Mrs. Selvin
espouses." It also stated that "the picketing by Teamster Local 986
will cease at such time as I am assured that your Company has aban-
doned the antiunion program on which it has embarked." Four days
later, a conference was held between Respondent's representative,
Riley, and Linsky, the president of LCS Corporation and also of the
Company here involved, with which LCS was affiliated. The Trial
145 NLRB No. 147.