General Furniture Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1940

26 N.L.R.B. 74 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of GENERAL FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
and FURNITURE WORKERS UNION LOCAL 1007
Case No. 0-813.-Decided August 3, 19110
Jurisdiction : furniture manufactuung industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Discrimination- discharges and refusal to reinstate, charges of, dismissed.
Although through mutual inadvertence or mistake of the parties, a contract
failed to contain the respondent's promise to require union membership as a
condition of employment, a requirement known to exist by all interested
parties, the Board considered and treated the contract as a closed-shop con-
tract in accordance with the parties' understanding.
Respondent held to have been justified in recognizing the substitution of
local unions by the parent organization as one which invested the successor
local with all the rights and privileges formerly enjoyed by the predecessor
under a closed-shop contract and that its action in discharging and refusing
to reinstate non-members of the successor local was privileged under the Act
and did not constitute unfair labor practices
Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed.
Mr. William A. Babcock, Jr., and Mr. Patrick H. Walker, for the
Board.
Monheimer ct Griffin, by Mr. Van C.' Griffin, and Mr. Melville
Monheimer, of Seattle, Wash., for the respondent.
Houghton, Cluck cQ Coughlin, by Mr. Paul Coughlin, of Seattle,
Wash., for Local No. 1007.
Mr. L. Presley Gill, of Seattle, Wash., for Local No. 2097.
Mr. F. Hamilton Seeley, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Furniture Workers
Union Local 1007, herein called Local No. 1007, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its complaint,
dated Jime 16, 1938, against General Furniture Manufacturing Com-
pany, Seattle, Washington, herein called the respondent, alleging that
26 N. L. R. B., No. S.
74
' GENERAL' FURNITURE "MANUFACTURING COMPANY .75
the,respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
and, Section 2 (6) ^ and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat: 449,E herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice
of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent , Local No.
.1007, and Furniture Workers Union , Local No. 2097 , 'herein called
Local No. 2097; a labor organization named in the complaint.
On June 21 , 1938, Local No. 2097 moved the Regional Director for
leave to intervene in the proceeding . On Juno 22 , 1938, the Regional
Director granted the motion.
'Concerning the unfair labor practices , the complaint , alleged, in
'substance ; that the respondent (1) by, on or about January 20, 1938,
discharging amid refusing thereafter to reinstate 3 employees 1 and on
February 11, 1938, dischar ging 'and refusing thereafter to reinstate 2
employees,2 solely because they were not members of and had refused
to, join Local No. 2097, discriminated against said employees to eu-
courage ',ntembership in a labor organization, and (2 ) by the foregoing
and other acts, :interfered with, restrained ,, and coerced its employees
in, the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On June 21 , 1938, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint
in which it^ admitted certain allegations concerning the nature and
scope "of its busines 's but denied the allegations concerning the unfair
-labor practices . The answer alleged affirmatively that on March 24,
"1938; the respondent had entered into a contract with Local No. 1007
'covering wages, hours , and conditions of work, and that this contract
contained a closed-shop provision ; that subsequent to entering into
said contract with Local No. 1007 , the respondent had been advised
that a majority of the members of Local No 1007 had petitioned its
paren't,lorganization to, cancel its charter , that this had been done,
,and that Local No. 2097 had been chartered in its stead ; that Local
No., 2097 now represented the respondent 's employees and, was
entitled ' to enforce the existing contract , including the closed-shop
provision thereof; and that respondent had refused to reemploy
3 employees 'on January 20 and had discharged 2 employees on Feb'.
ruary Ul at the request of Local No ., 2097 pursuant to the terms of said
contract '
" Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties , a hearing was hold
on June '30 and July 1, 1938 , at Seattle, Washington , before Jesse E.
Jacobson , the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board, the respondent , Local No 1007, and Local No . - 2097 were
representedby counsel " and participated in the hearing . At the hear-
mg,,,witl'i the exception noted below , full opportunity to he heard, to
Stephen Russell, Joe Black, and D,,n,tri Jovick.
I,Roy ifedford'and Mons Lien
76 DECISIONS OF ' NATIONAL' ,LABOR ,RELATIONS BOARD
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of
the hearing the Trial Examiner excluded. evidence concerning the
parties' construction of the contract of March 24, 1937, and the prac-
tice of the parties under said contract. This evidence was material
'and its exclusion by the Trial Examiner was erroneous. However,
in view of its subsequent admission to the record, as indicated below,
we find that the rights of the parties were not prejudiced by this ruling
of the Trial Examiner.' At the outset of the hearing the respondent
and Local No. 2097 each moved to dismiss the complaint for the reason
that it was predicated upon a charge filed by Local. No. 1007 which
they contended was a non-existent organization. These motions
were denied by the Trial Examiner. His ruling is hereby affirmed.'
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a motion
made by the Board's attorney to conform the complaint to the proof.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made other
rulings upon motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On August 1, 1938, the Trial Examiner- issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties. He found
that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting-
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2
(6) of the Act and recommended that the respondent cease and desist
from its unfair labor practices and, affirmatively, reinstate with back
pay the 5 employees named in the complaint as having been unlawfully
discriminated against, and.post appropriate notices.
On August 15 and August 17, 1938, Local No. 2097 and the
respondent, respectively filed their exceptions to the Intermediate
Report. The respondent also requested oral argument before the
Board. Permission having been granted to all parties by the Board,
on January 15 and January 17, 1939, respectively, the respondent
and Local No. 2097 filed briefs., On May 13, 1939,'the Board notified
all parties that the hearing for the purpose of oral argument which
had previously been scheduled for May 18, 1939, was postponed to
May 19, 1939. On the same day. the respondent, by letter, waived
oral argument. None of the parties appeared at the, scheduled
hearing for oral argument.
3 The Act authorizes the Board to issue a complaint whenever it is charged that any person has engaged
in unfair labor practices The Board has provided in its Rules and Regulations that "a charge that any
person has engaged in or is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce may be made by any person
or labor organization " The function of the charge is to call the attention of the Board to the fact that
ceitain unfair labor practices are alleged to have been committed A charge is merely the means whereby
action on the part of the Board is instituted and is not a formal pleading filed by a party to the proceeding.
The authority of a labor organization to act on behalf of employees or the authority of a particular individual
to act on behalf of a labor organization , in filing the charge, cannot be questioned by the respondent or by a
party such as the intervenor is here
'GENERAL FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 77
On July 19, 1939, the Board, having duly considered the matter,
ordered,' pursuant to Article II, Section 35, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, that the record be
reopened, that a further hearing be held for the purpose of introducing
evidence as, to. the parties' construction of the afore-mentioned con-
tract and"as to the practice of the parties-under the said contract,
and that the proceedings be remanded to the Regional Director for
the purpose of conducting such further hearing, and authorized the
Regional Director t6 serve notice of further hearing.
On September 7, 1939, the Regional Director duly served all
parties with notice of such further hearing. Pursuant to notice, a
further hearing was held on September 21, 22, and 23, 1939, at Seattle,
Washington, before P. H. McNally, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Board. All parties were represented by counsel and
pa'r'ticipated in the further hearing. Full opportunity was afforded
all 'parties to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to,'iiitroduce evidence bearing upon the issues for the determination
of which the further hearing was held. At the conclusion of the
further hearing, counsel for the Board made a motion to conform the
pleadings to the' proof. The Trial Examiner did not rule upon this
motion:' ' The motion is hereby granted. The Trial Examiner made
rulings `on'other motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
denec. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
On October 20, 1939, the Board ordered that no Intermediate
Report should be issued by the Trial Examiner in the-further hearing
and, pursuant to Article II, Section 37, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, that Proposed Findings of
Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order should be
issued and that the parties should have the right, within 20 days
from the receipt of said Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Con-
clusions of Law, and Proposed Order, to file exceptions thereto, to
request oral argument before the Board, and to request permission
to file a brief with the Board.
On June 24, 1940, the Board issued and duly served upon the parties
copies of its Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of
Law, - and Proposed Order. Therein, pursuant to Article II, Sec-
tion 37, of its Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended on
March 11, 1940, the Board duly notified the parties of their right
within twenty (20) days from the date of the Proposed Findings of
Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order to file
exceptions and to request oral argument before the Board, and°'gave
notice that any party might within thirty (30) days after the date
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and
Proposed Order file a brief with the Board On July 13, 1940,.Local
No. 1007 filed exceptions to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed
Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Proposed Findings
of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and,Proposed Order and,,
save as they are consistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and Order, as set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the enture record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, General Furniture Manufacturing Company, is a
Washington corporation with its principal office and place of business
located in Seattle, Washington. The respondent is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of household furniture, office
desks, plywood, and ski.4 The principal raw materials used by the
respondent are lumber, hardware, mirrors, glue, and sandpaper. Ap-
proximately 75 per cent of these raw materials originate in States
other than the State of Washington. During 1937 the respondent's
gross sales amounted to approximately $525,000. Approximately 70
per cent of the respondent's furniture is shipped to points outside the
State-of Washington, principally to the Western States, Canada, and
Hawaii.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Furniture Workers Union, Local 1007, is a labor organization, ad-
mitting to its membership all production employees engaged in the
manufacture of furniture in the general vicinity of Seattle, Washing-
ton. Local No. 1007 was chartered in 1933 by United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein called the Brotherhood,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. On December 20,
1937, its charter was suspended and, since that date, it has been an
unaffiliated labor organization.
Furniture Workers Union, Local 2097, was chartered on Decem-
ber 23, 1937, by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Local
No. 2097 is a labor organization, admitting to its membership all pro-
4 On May 13, 1939, the respondent , having served copies thereof upon the other parties to this proceeding,
lodged with the Board an affidavit of its president stating, in substance, that the respondent had "sold the
machinery of its plants" and "is not now engaged in the business of manufacturing furniture and intends to
never again engage in said business " We do not here pass upon the extent to which we would consider
such an affidavit , in the absence of a motion to make it a part of the record, were it material and necessary
to do so. We note merely that ( 1) "manufacturing furniture " is only a part of the respondent 's business;
and (2) the mere cessation of business by the respondent would not remove it from the purview of the Act.
See Matter of Ray Nichols , Inc. and Local No 46-B, United Turniture, Carpet, Linoleum and Atoning 11"ork-
ers Union , 15 N L . R B 846.
GENERAL FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 79
duction employees engaged in the manufacture of furniture in the
general vicinity of Seattle, Washington.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
For several years prior to 1937 Local No. 1007 represented prac-
tically all the production employees engaged in the manufacture of
furniture in the general vicinity of Seattle, Washington, including
employees of the respondent.' Each year the respondent, individually
and through the Seattle Furniture Manufacturers Association, Inc.,
herein called the Association, entered into a contract with Local No.
1007 covering wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.'
On March 25, 1937,' the Association, the respondent, and Local
No. 1007 entered into a contract which was to terminate on September
30, 1938. At this time all the respondent's production employees
were members of Local No. 1007.
The contract provided, inter alia, as follows:
Article V.'
(2) In filling vacancies or hiring new help, the COMPANY
agrees to give preference to members of the UNION. If UNION
men who are satisfactory to the COMPANY are not available,
the COMPANY may 'then hire whom they desire provided such
employees join the UNION within thirty (30) days of being
given employment.
The respondent and Local No. 2097 contend that by Article V of
the contract the respondent was obligated to require union member-
ship of all its employees, those in its employ at the time the contract
was entered into as well as those hired thereafter. The provision, on
its face, however, appears to refer to only preferential hiring of new
or' additional employees through the Union and does not appear 'to
establish a closed shop as the respondent and Local No. 2097 contend
However, clear and convincing proof was adduced at the second hear-
ing that the parties mutually intended and agreed in the agreement
reached by them on March 25, 1937, and which they supposed was
expressed in the instrument then executed that the respondent require
of all production workers then in its employ and thereafter union
membership as a condition of employment. The president, secre-
tary, and several members of the Association who constituted its
negotiating committee testified that the committee believed that the
E The Association was composed of about 15 furniture manufacturers engaged in business in Seattle,
Washington . Negotiations by the manufacturers with Local No. 1007 were conducted through the Asso-
ciation. When the terms of a contract were agreed upon, Local No 1007 , the Association , and its individual
members , signed a master contract . An identical contract was then signed by Local No 1007 and each
member of the Association.
6 Although the contract is dated March 24, 1937 , it was not signed by the parties until the following day.
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract established such a closed shop, and that they had so reported
to the Association at the time the contract was negotiated. The
president of the Association testified that at a meeting thereof there
was a discussion about the effect of the contract and "In effect we all
agreed that was nothing less but a closed shop agreement." Five
members of the negotiating committee of Local No. 1007 testified in
substance that they and the other members of Local No. 1007 had
believed that the contract provided for a closed shop. This evidence
as to the parties' agreement, and understanding is strongly corrobo-
rated by the evidence as to the practice of the parties under the con-
tract. Ray C. Anderson, president of the respondent, testified that
after the contract was signed it was his understanding and practice to
require all the respondent's employees to belong to Local No. 1007.
August Nylin, general manager of the Pacific Chair Company, 'another
member of the Association which had signed an identical contract
with Local No. 1007, testified that the business agent of Local No.
1007 had informed him that Article V of the contract applied to old
employees as well as new and that following the signing of the, con-
tract he had been required to make three old employees join Local
No. 1007. In addition, several' of the employees allegedly discrimi-
nated against by the respondent admitted at the second hearing that
it had been the practice of Local No. 1007 to enforce the contract as
a closed-shop agreement. Until the suspension of Local No. 1007's
charter neither the respondent, Local No. 1007, nor any of the re-
spondent's employees at any time acted inconsistently with the exist-
ence of an outstanding closed-shop agreement.
We are convinced from the foregoing, and find, that all production
workers employed by the respondent at the time the contract was
entered into, including the five employees alleged to have been dis-
criminated against, then knew and understood, that the contract
required union membership as a condition of employment. We find
that through mutual mistake or inadvertence of the parties the con-
tract of March 24, 1937, failed to contain the respondent's promise to
require union membership as a condition of employment by 'it,, a
requirement known to exist by all interested parties. , Under these,
circumstances the contract will be considered for the purposes of this,
proceeding as a closed-shop contract, as if it expressly, set. forth the
respondent's undertaking 7
7 See Matter of Ansley Radio Corporation and Local 1221 United Electrical & Radio Workers of America,
C. I. 0 , 18 N. L R B 1028, where the Board said: ,
When through mutual inadvertence or mistake of the parties to a written collective agreement that
agreement fails to express fully and accurately the intention of the parties , the Board in a proper case
may consider and treat the written agreement as if it expressed what the parties intended it to provide
and supposed it did. Effectuation of the purposes and policy of the Act requires that in such instances
the determination of whether the respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice should not depend
upon a fact which is contrary to the understanding of the employer and all persons concerned.
GENERAL ' FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 81
' On December 20, 1937, William L. Hutcheson, General President of
the Brotherhood, instructed Howard Bennett, a general representative,
to "lift" the charter of Local No. 1007, because it had been suspended
by'the' Brotherhood', and to take over the monies and property of
Local No. 1007 and hold them in trust to be delivered to a new local
when he'should be notified to do so by the Brotherhood. Pursuant
to these instructions Bennett took possession of the charter, monies,
and other property of Local No. 1007 and subsequently turned them
over to Local No. 2097 when it was chartered by the Brotherhood on
December 23, 1937. Shortly thereafter all but 20 members of Local
No. 1007, of a total membership of approximately 600, became mem-
bers of Local No. 2097. Of the respondent's 187 production employees,
all of whom had formerly been members of Local No. 1007, all but 5
became members of Local No. 2097. ' Thereafter, neither the respond-
ent nor the Association had 'any negotiations with Local No. 1007 or
communications therefrom.
On December 23, 1937, Bennett wrote to Ray Anderson, the respond-
ent's 'president, informing him of a change in the management of
Local No. 1007 and that George Bartholomew was the new business
'agent'thereof: On January 20, 1938, Bartholomew wrote a letter to
the respondent stating, inter alia,
You have been previously advised of the permanent suspension
and the non-existence of Furniture Workers Union Local 1007 by
its parent body and of the reorganization of furniture workers into
Local 2097.
Your contract with the old union upon suspension was held in
trust by the parent body for the benefit of the'new union. The
Brotherhood has designated this union as the successor' to all the
privileges and obligations of your contract.
The letter further advised the respondent that Local No. 2097
demanded ,strict compliance with the closed-shop provision and that
'it was, prepared to supply all the competent help required by the
respondent.
On January 20 Bartholomew wrote another letter* to the respondent,
apparently in response to an inquiry, advising the respondent that
certain named individuals were not members of Local No. 2097.
On January 21,;1938, S. P. \Mleadows,'on behalf of Hutcheson, wrote
a letter to the respondent similar to Bartholomew's letter of January
20, 1938
On February 4, 1938, Bartholomew again wrote to the respondent
advising. that Local, No. 2097 was the duly designated successor to
Local No.' 1007 "arid is entitled to all title .ind benefit of 'existing
agreements."
During December and January there was a curtailment of the re-
spondent 's operations which necessitated -the temporary lay-off of
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some of its employees. Ordinarily these employees would have been
reinstated when operations warranted. However, on January 20,
1938, upon the respondent's increasing its operations and pursuant
to the request of Local No. 2097, the respondent refused to reinstate
three employees,8 who had been laid off temporarily, for th e reason
that they were not members of Local No. 2097. On February 11,
1938, the respondent discharged two employees 9 for the same reason.
Since that date all production employees of the respondent have been
members of Local No. 2097.
On March 15, 1938, Local No. 2097 and the respondent agreed to
amend the contract by eliminating a provision for a wage increase on
April 1, 1938.1)
The complaint alleges that the respondent by discharging and re-
fusing to reinstate the five employees hereinabove named, engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the
Act. The respondent denies that its acts with respect to those employ-
ees constituted unfair labor practices and contends that its actions in
this respect were required by Article V of the contract, set forth in
Section III above, since, according to the respondent, Article ,V pro-
vided for a closed shop and after the suspension of the charter of Local
No. 1007 and the formation and chartering of Local No. 2097, the
respondent was obligated to employ members of Local No. 2097 only.
The respondent, by discharging or refusing to reinstate its employees
for the reason that they were not members of Local No. 2097, thereby
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act unless its actions in this respect were required of it by a
contract such as that permitted by the proviso to that section.
.Section 8 (3) declares, inter alia, that it shall be an unfair labor
practice for an employer by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure
of employment, to encourage membership in any labor organization,
provided, however, that
. . . nothing in this Act . . . shall preclude an employer'-from
making an agreement with a labor organization (not established,
maintained, or assisted by any action defined in this Act as an
unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment
membership therein, if such labor organization, is the ' reprc-
sentative of the employees as provided in Section 9 (a), iii the
appropriate collective bargaining uni6 covered by such agreement
when made.
8 Stephen Russell , Joe Black, and Dimitri Jovick
Y Roy Medford and Mons Lien
is On December 13, 1938, the respondent filed with the Board a motion to add to the record an affidavit
stating that on August 30, 1938, the Association served notice upon Local No 1007 and Local No. 2097 of
Its intention to terminate the contract in the manner therein provided and that on November 7, 1938, the
Association and Local No 2097 entered into a new contract , a copy of which was attached-to the affidavit.
The respondent's motion to add to the record is hereby denied. . ,
GENERAL FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 83
-As 14ated above, we shall treat the contract of March 24, 1937, as
'though it expressed fully and accurately the intention of the parties
and contained a closed shop provision. No contention is here made
that the unit covered by said contract is or was inappropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining. Nor is there any contention that
either Local No. 1007 or Local No. 2097 was established, maintained,
or assisted by any unfair labor practices." Nor is there any question
that at the time it entered into the contract, Local No. 1007 reple-
sented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit.
The record is clear that, following the events of December 1937,
.Local No. 1007 no longer in fact represented a majority of the respond-
cut's employees and made no attempt to bargain or otherwise corn-
,]inimicate with the respondent. Nor is there evidence that Local No.
1007 ever protested or appealed the Brotherhood's action in suspending
its charter although' the constitution and laws of the Brotherhood
provide for such an appeal.12 The objective result was that the
Brotherhood suspended the charter of Local No. 1007 and substituted
Local No. 2097 in its place and stead and it is apparent that the
respondent, Local No. 2097, the Brotherhood, and a majority of the
former members of Local No. 1007 recognized the substitution as one
which invested Local No. 2097 with all the rights and privileges
formerly enjoyed by Local No. 1007 under the contract. The absence
of any communication to it from Local No. 1007 justified the respond-
ent in recognizing such substitution, particularly in view of the fact
that it bore the approval of the Brotherhood, the' organization which
to the respondent's knowledge was the parent organization of Local
No. 1007. The Brotherhood could have retained the charter of Local
No. 1007 and insisted that the respondent perform its obligations
according to the terms thereof. We do not believe that the substitu-
tion of Local No. 2097 for Local No. 1,007 altered the respondent's
obligations to the Brotherhood or to the successor of Local No. 1007.13
We find, in consequence, that the respondent was justified in relying
upon the contract in discharging and refusing to reinstate nonmembers
of Local No. 2097. Since the respondent's refusal to reinstate
Stephen Russell, Joe Black, and Dimitri Jovick and discharge of
Roy Medford and Mons Lien for the reason that they were not mem-
bers of Local No. 2097 was privileged under the proviso clause of
11 There is, of course , implicit in the allegations of the complaint which we are here considering the addi-
tional allegation that the respondent , by engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices , thereby assisted
Local No 2097. However, the validity of the contract is to be determined as of a tune prior to the occurrence
of I he unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
12 "A Section 57 . any Local Union having any gi ievance, may appeal tot he I teneiat I'resideut
is redress, subject to a furtlo'i appeal to the Uteneral Executive Board and a hual appeal to tie (tenei.d
Convention . "
19 See Matter of T E Pearce Contracting and Stevedoring Company, Inc , and International Long6liorenien
and lvarehousemen 's Union, Local 2-5, 20 N L R: B 1061.
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
Section 8 (3) of the Act, we find that the, respon dent. has not engaged'
in .unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8,(1) and,(3)
of the Act and shall, accordingly, dismiss the complaint.,, . I,,
Upon the basis of the above findings, of fact and upon the :entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Furniture Manufacturing Company is engaged in
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. '
2. Furniture Workers-Union, Local 1007, and Furniture Workers
Union, Local 2097, are labor organizations, within the meaning, of
Section 2 (5) of the Act. ' - . I I . , 11',
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
ORDER -
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
complaint against the respondent, General Furniture Manufacturing
Company, Seattle, Washington, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration, of
the above Decision and Order.