Krambo Food Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 2, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 742 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ger, the packing foreman, the labor contractor, and all other super-
visors as defined by the Act.
5. Because the seasonal employment peak for the Auburn and New-
castle sheds has passed, we shall not direct that elections be held at
this time. Following our customary practice in seasonal industries,
we shall direct that elections be held at or about the time of the em-
ployment peak of the next packing season, on a date to be determined
by the Regional Director, among the employees in the appropriate
units who are employed during the payroll period immediately pre-
ceding the date of issuance of the notices of election.'
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
* See Imperial Garden GFrowera , 91 NLRB 1034, 1040.
KRAMBO FOOD STORES, INC. and GROCERY CLERKS UNION, LOCAL No.
1469, RETAIL C îLLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETI-
TIONER . Case No. 13-RC-2379. December 2, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
On August 14, 1952, the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Re-
gion issued his report on objections, in which he recommended that the
Intervenor's objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certi-
fied as majority representative of the employees in the unit set forth
in the Board's Decision and Direction of Election? Thereafter, the
Intervenor filed exceptions to the report on objections.z
The Board has considered the report on objections, the exceptions
thereto, and the entire record in this case, and finds that the exceptions
do not raise any substantial or material issues with respect to the elec-
tion.3 Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the Regional Director's
findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the following addi-
tions and modifications :
In the latter part of its tenth objection, the Intervenor asserts
that an AFL representative who was also a member of the Wage
Stabilization Board, Business Agent Stadelmann, threatened to block
any wage increase sought by the Intervenor if it won the election.
198 NLRB 1320.
2 On October 29, 1952, the Employer moved for reconsideration of the Board's Decision
and Direction of Election of April 29, 1952, and for other relief. No sufficient reason
was shown for finding the motion to be timely . The motion is accordingly denied. See
Harcourt and Co., 100 NLRB 1383.
8 The Intervenor and the Employer moved for a hearing . As there are no substantial
questions of fact at issue, and as the positions of the parties are in our opinion adequately
presented , the motions are denied.
101 NLRB No. 132
KRAMBO FOOD STORES, INC. 743
The Intervenor claims that this statement had a coercive effect, and
therefore constituted conduct affecting the result of the election.
As the Regional Director reported, on January 20, 1952, 4 months
before the election, Stadelmann allegedly said : "Krambo employees
will never get an increase as long as they belong to the [Intervenor],
because I am on the Wage Stabilization (Board) and I'll see that
they don't get any increases." We agree with the Regional Director
that the alleged statement was too remote in time to have constituted
interference. Assuming that it would have been improper campaign
propaganda which would normally have had some coercive effect
when made, any such effect was surely dissipated by the passage of
4 months between its utterance and the election 4 In view of these
circumstances, we shall adopt the Regional Director's recommenda-
tion with respect to Stadelmann's alleged remark.
The Intervenor also asserts in effect that Stadelmann's action in
inducing the Wage Stabilization Board to prevent the effectuation
of its negotiated increase, only 2 days before the election, was conduct
interfering with the result of the election. As the Regional Director
reported, about 1 week before the election the Employer and the
Intervenor agreed to a wage increase, to become effective 2 days before
the election. When Stadelmann notified the Wage Stabilization
Board of the proposed increase, that Board informed the Employer
that it would "proceed against the Company" if the raise was put
into effect. There is no allegation, nor does the record suggest, that
Stadelmann participated in any Wage Stabilization Board decision
to notify the Employer. In any event, as found by the Regional
Director, the Employer's failure to effectuate the agreed last-minute
wage increases constituted withdrawal from an action which might
well have interfered with the employees' free choice in the election
and formed the basis for cross-objections. Under these circumstances,
we find nothing in Stadelmann's action which would warrant setting
the election aside.
Accordingly, the Regional Director's recommendations are hereby
adopted in their entirety. Since the tally of ballots shows that a
majority of all valid votes cast were for the Petitioner, we shall
certify that organization as the collective bargaining representative
of all the Employer's employees in the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Grocery Clerks Union, Local 1469,
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, has been designated
and selected by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit
4 Greater New York Broadcasting Company ( WNEW ), 85 NLRB 414.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, said organization is the
exclusive representative of all such employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
RIDGE GROWERS, INCORPORATED and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.
Case No. 10-CA-1189. December 3, 195.
Decision and Order
On March 12, 1952, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 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 Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case 2 and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.3
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [ Members Houston, Murdock , and Styles].
2 The request by the Respondent for oral argument is denied , because the record, excep-
tions, and brief , in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties.
We assert jurisdiction herein on the basis of the Respondent 's direct out-of-State ship-
ment annually of goods valued at $25,000 or more. Stanislaus Implement and Hardware
Company, Lsmlted , 91 NLRB 618 ; ef. Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
We agree with the Trial Examiner ' s finding that the 30-day layoff of Mary Hodge was
actually an outright discriminatory discharge , and that Hodge was , therefore , not obligated
to apply for reinstatement at the end of 30 days. Hodge , along with four other employees,
had been designated for discharge by the Respondent because of their union activities.
The four other employees were, as we have found , either discriminatorily discharged, or
discriminatorily refused reemployment the following season. Moreover , these unfair labor
practices and the other unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent reveal an
attitude on the part of the Respondent of complete opposition to the organizational efforts
of its employees . Under such circumstances , we find that the Respondent had no intention
of rehiring Hodge at the end of 30 days , but rather intended , and therefore effected, a
permanent discharge. We shall , therefore , order the Respondent to offer reinstatement
to Hodge with unabated back pay as hereinafter provided . See N. L. R. B. v . Red Rock
Co., et at., 187 F . 2d 76 ( C. A. 5), enforcing as modified 84 NLRB 521; 341 U. S. 950, cert.
denied.
We find no merit in the Respondent 's contention that the Trial Examiner was biased
because he resolved every material conflict of evidence in favor of the General Counsel
and against the Respondent . N. L. R. B. v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 337 U . S. 656, reversing
and remanding 167 F. 2d 126 (C. A. 6).
101 NLRB No. 14&