Economy Furniture

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1113 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

ECONOMY FURNITURE 1113
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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated against J. D. Jones, Emma
Hamrick, and Reba F. Sandlin with respect to their hire and tenure of employment,
I will recommend that it be ordered to offer them immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered because of the discrimination against them, by
payment of a sum of money equal to the amount they normally would have earned
as wages from the date of their discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement,
less their net earnings during said period, with back pay computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth, 90 NLRB 289,
291-294. I will also recommend that the Respondent make available to the Board
upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the determination of the
amounts due under this recommended remedy.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission
of similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated. I shall
therefore recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
in any manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging J. D. Jones, Emma Hamrick, and Reba F. Sandlin the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. By the foregoing conduct, by asking Dwight Collins to reveal his information
concerning union activities, and by telling an employee that Jones' employment
would be terminated because of his union activity, the Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
. [Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Economy Furniture and Upholsterers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO and General Drivers and Helpers
Local Union No. 657, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America,' Petitioners. Cases Nos. 39-RC-1316 and 39-RC-13920.
January 27, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Wilton Waldrop, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
1 Petitioners are called Upholsterers and Teamsters, respectively.
122 NLRB No. 131.
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
Affirmed .2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a
three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and
Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.3
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees at the Employer's Austin, Texas,
plant constitute units appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act :
In Case No. 39-RC-1316 all production and maintenance em-
ployees, excluding all truckdrivers, helpers, shipping and receiving
employees, yardmen and loaders, professional employees, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
In Case No. 39-RC-1320 all truckdrivers, shipping and receiving
a The Employer contends that the petitions are defective in that : ( 1) The Upholsterers
did not comply with the Board ' s Rules and Regulations as it did not indicate in the
appropriate blanks in its petition the number of employees in -the unit sought by it or
that its petition was supported by 30 percent of the employees, and that the subsequent
filling in of the blanks by the hearing officer was invalid ; ( 2) there was no showing in
either petition that a request for recognition had been made upon the Employer; (3) no
investigation was made by the Regional Director to determine the validity of the authori-
zation cards submitted by the Petitioners; and (4 ) the signatory of the Teamsters'
petition was not present at the hearing or available for cross -examination by the Employer
with respect to the truth of the statements made in the petition . We find no merit in
these contentions . As to ( 1) and ( 2), the failure of Upholsterers to specify the number
of employees in the unit or to show that its petition is supported by 30 percent of the
employees is not a ground for dismissing the petition , and the failure to allege in the
petitions that the Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioners is a technical omission
which does not prejudice the Employer . See Dependable Parts, Inc ., 112 NLRB 581, 582.
As to ( 3), the Board has frequently held that the adequacy of a showing of interest and
the procedures employed by the Board in investigating such showing are matters for
administrative determination , not litigable at a representation hearing. The Shefeld
Corporation, 108 NLRB 349. Moreover , we are satisfied that Petitioners ' showing of
interest is adequate . While the Employer claims to have evidence that at least 70 em-
ployees ( of 213 in both units ) have not signed authorization cards, no contention is made
that any of the 05 cards submitted to the Regional Director were obtained by improper
means. As to ( 4), while the individual filing the Teamsters ' petition was not present at
the hearing, there is no requirement in the Act or the Board's Rules and Regulations
that he attend such a hearing . If the Employer deemed his testimony relevant, it was
free to subpena him. The Teamsters was in fact represented at the hearing by the same
individual who appeared for the Upholsterers . In this connection , the Employer contends
that this individual 's testimony that the Teamsters is a labor organization was in-
admissible hearsay. However, this testimony was stated by the witness to be based on
his knowledge of contracts negotiated by Teamsters and of its organizing activities. As
there is no refutation of this testimony in the record, we rely thereon in finding that
Teamsters is in fact a labor organization.
3 See footnote 2.
MIDDLE DE'pT . ASSOCIATION. OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS 1115
clerks, warehousemen, and yardmen, excluding all production and
maintenance employees, office clerical employees, foremen, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act 4
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
* The unit findings are in accord with agreements of the parties.
Middle Department Association of Fire Underwriters and Local
1115, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Cabe No. 22-RC-268. January 27, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leonard Bass,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
-.Member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fan-
ning-J.
Upon the entire. record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer contends that it is not engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and is therefore not subject to the
Board's jurisdiction. The Employer is an unincorporated associa-
tion composed of 266 fire and property insurance companies, with
its principal office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Its principal serv-
ices for its member companies, and for approximately 78 partial
subscribers to its services, consist of development of rating sched-
ules for fire and related insurance risks, publishing of rules and
policy forms, preparation of fire and underwriting reports, and
examination of daily reports, binders, and other evidence of insur-
ance, to determine whether such coverage is in accord with rules
and rates filed with State insurance departments. It is licensed by
the States of Pennsylvania and Delaware to perform these services
for insurance companies, and admits to membership insurance com-
panies licensed to do business in those States. In 1957, it received
approximately $1,739,000 in assessments from companies and sub-
scribers for these services, in excess of $50,000 of which represented
assessments from companies doing business in more than one State.
In addition, the Employer also renders an electrical inspection serv-
ice on a fee basis to building contractors, public utilities, and mu-
nicipalities in the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey,
Maryland, Virginia,. and West Virginia. In 1957 its income from
122 NLRB No. 130.