Fabuglas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 267 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

FABUGLAS COMPANY 267
The Petitioner seeks to represent employees in the following unit :
All persons employed by the Company to render services on
assignment by the Washington, D.C., News Bureau of the Com-
pany as network news correspondents, including without limita-
tion the services of news gathering, news preparation, and news
writing related and incidental to such services as news correspond-
ents, whether assigned or intended for broadcast (and whether or
not broadcast) on a network basis over the facilities of the NBC
television or radio network or on a local basis by the Company's
radio and television stations WRC-AM, FM and TV in Washing-
ton, D.C.
The unit sought, the contentions of the parties,2 the duties of the
newsmen and their relationship to the Employer, and the record as a
whole, are so similar to the situation in American Broadcasting Com-
pany, 153 NLRB 259, also issued this day, that full recitation here
is not warranted. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in American
Broadcasting Company, supra, we find that the unit sought is inappro-
priate and shall dismiss the petition herein.
'[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER ZAGORIA took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Order.
2In view of our disposition of this case , we do not reach the Employer's contentions
that the requested employees are either supervisors or managerial employees.
Allen Manufacturing Company, Inc. d/b/a Fabuglas Company
and District 50, United Mine Workers of America . Case No.
.26-CA-2005. June 2 ,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon an amended charge filed on March 30, 1965, by the Regional
Director, Region 30, District 50, United Mine Workers of America
(herein called the Union), against Respondent, Allen Manufacturing
Company, Inc. d/b/a Fabuglas Company, and duly served on Respond-
ent, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board by
the Regional Director for Region 26, on March 30, 1965, issued and
served upon the parties herein an amended complaint and notice of
hearing. The amended complaint alleges that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
153 NLRB No. 19.
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges
that on or about January 8, 1965, the Union was duly certified by the
Board 1 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board
and that since on or about January 15, 1965, Respondent has refused
to recognize or bargain with the Union as such exclusive bargaining
representative although it has been requested to do so.
On April 14, 1965, all parties to this proceeding entered into a stipu-
lation wherein they agreed as to the contents of the record in this case,2
and to the submission of this case to the Board for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and a Decision and Order. The parties waived
hearing before a Trial Examiner and the issuance of a Trial Exam-
iner's Decision . The Respondent and the General Counsel have filed
briefs with the Board.
On April 23, 1965, the Board issued an order approving stipulation
and transferring case to the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, as amended,
the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
Upon the basis of the foregoing stipulation and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
In the course and conduct of its business operations, the Respond-
ent has, during the past 12 months, received at its Nashville, Tennessee,
plant, directly from points outside the State of Tennessee, products
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 and has manufactured, sold,
and distributed products valued in excess of $50,000, which were
shipped from its Nashville, Tennessee, plant, directly to States of the
United States outside of the State of Tennessee. The complaint
alleges, the Respondent has admitted, and we find that Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act. We therefore find that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
1 Case No 26-RC-2249, not published in NLRB volumes
2 The record as stipulated to by the parties consists of the stipulation and exhibits at-
tached thereto, the charges, amended complaint , and amended answer.
FABUGLAS COMPANY 269
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On September 4, 1964, the Union filed a petition in Case No. 26-
RC-2249, seeking certification as exclusive bargaining representative
of certain employees of Respondent, at its Nashville, Tennessee, plant.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a stipulation for certification upon
consent election , pursuant to which an election by secret ballot was held
on October 16,1964, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 26, among the employees in the unit described
below. The tally of ballots showed that 42 ballots were cast for the
Petitioner, and 13 against the petitioner, there being no challenged
ballots. On October 22, 1964, the Respondent filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of election.
The Regional Director, acting pursuant to the Board's Rules and
3fegulations, Series 8, as amended, investigated the objections and, on
November 18, 1964, issued his report thereon in which he recommended
that the objections be overruled and that the Union be certified as exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees in the stipulated unit.
'Thereafter, on November 28, 1964, the Respondent filed timely excep-
:tions to this report with the Board.
The Board, on January 8, 1965, after due consideration of the entire
-record in Case No. 26-RC-2249, issued its Decision in which it sus-
tained the recommendations of the Regional Director. Accordingly,
as the Union had received a majority of the ballots of the eligible
employees, the Board certified the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the unit set
-forth below.
On January 12, 1965, the Union requested Respondent to bargain
with it as the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the
,employees in the appropriate unit. On January 15, 1965, Respondent
refused to bargain with the Union, contending, as set forth in a letter
.of that date, that the certification was invalid in that the Board was
in error in not finding the conduct of the Union, prior to the election,
to be objectionable as alleged by the Respondent.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties stipulated, and we found, in Case No. 26-RC-2249 that
the following employees of Respondent constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of See-
9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees, truckdrivers, leadmen,
janitors, and stock clerks employed at Respondent's Nashville,
Tennessee, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusions
We have carefully examined the entire record in the instant case,
and we find that the Respondent has refused to bargain, .upon request,
with the Union which has been duly certified as the bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees in an appropriate unit. Accordingly, we
find that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the
Act.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, we.
shall order that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action which we find necessary in order to effectuate the
purposes of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, we adopt the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Allen Manufacturing Company, Inc. d/b/a Fabuglas Company
is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is:
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. District 50, United Mine Workers of America is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Union is, and at all times since January 8,1965, has been, the
exclusive, certified representative, for purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to wages and other terms and conditions of employment,
of the employees in the appropriate unit.
4. Commencing on January 12, 1965, and continuing to date, the
Union has requested, and is requesting, Respondent to bargain collec-
tively with it with respect to wages and other terms and conditions of
employment of all the employees of Respondent in the appropriate
unit.
5. Commencing on or about January 15, 1965, and at all times there
after, Respondent did refuse, and continues to refuse, to bargain with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, in that the Respond-
ent has refused, and continues to refuse, to meet, negotiate, and/or
discuss with the Union matters with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
6. By the acts described above in paragraph 5, and by each of said
acts, Respondent has failed and refused, and continues to fail and
refuse, to bargain collectively with the representative of its employees,
and thereby did engage in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
FABUGLAS COMPANY 271
7. By the acts described in paragraph 5 above, and by each of said
acts, Respondent did interfere with, restrain, and coerce, and is inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing, its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby did
engage in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
8. The acts of Respondent described in paragraph 5 above, occur-
ring in connection with its operations, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof, and thus constitute unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
Respondent, Allen Manufacturing Company, Inc. d/b•/a Fabuglas
Company, Nashville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to recognize or to bargain collectively in good faith
concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, with District 50, United Mine Workers of America as the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the following appropriate unit :
All production and maintenance employees, truckdrivers, leadmen,
janitors, and stock clerks employed at Respondent's Nashville,
Tennessee, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 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 the above-named Union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the foregoing appro-
priate unit, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding
reached with respect to the employees in the unit.
(b) Post at its Nashville, Tennessee, plant, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
$ In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, what steps Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with District 50,
United Mine Workers of America as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and 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, truckdrivers,
leadmen, janitors, and stock clerks employed at our Nashville,
Tennessee, plant, excluding office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
ALLEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
D/B/A FABUGLAS COMPANY,
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.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 273
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee, Telephone No. 534-3161, if they have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Winn-Dixie Stores , Inc. and Meat Cutters, Packinghouse and
Allied Food Workers Union , Local 433, Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO.
Case No. 1'-CA-2878. June 22, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 15, 1965, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such
allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent, the General Coun-
sel, and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to 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 [Chairman Mc-
Culloch and Members Fanning 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
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein.'
' The Trial Examiner refused to count the authorization card signed by employee
Foracker ( sometimes referred to as Fouracker in the transcript ) in computing the num-
ber of valid cards on the crucial dates . He did so on the ground that there was no reliable
evidence to corroborate the December 31, 1963, date written on the card. We do not
agree . The card is imprinted with a union date stamp of January 11, 1964. Robert
Ackerman , the Union ' s secretary-treasurer , identified the date stamp on Foracker's card
and stated that it was the Union ' s practice to affix the stamp on the next business day
following receipt of cards. On the basis of the entire record, and particularly the above-
related testimony , we find that Foracker signed his card prior to the two demand dates.
As the inclusion of Foracker 's card would not give the Union a majority, we shall not
disturb the 'F al Examiner 's conclusion that Respondent was under no statutory duty
to bargain.
At the bearing , the complaint was amended to allege that Respondent 's garage super-
intendent , Abbott, had interrogated and threatened employees Lewis Champion and Irving
Fleming in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner did not discuss
153 NLRB No. 29.
796-027-66-vol. 153-19