Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 5 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

MANNING, MAXWELL & MOORE, INCORPORATED 5
Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, Beer Salesmen of the Sabine District , or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming
or remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
0. DEL PAPA AND SONS,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 6617 Fed-
eral Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas, 77002, Telephone No.
Capitol 8-0611 , Extension 271, if they have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.
Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Incorporated and International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA-
2W. June 24, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 30, 1963, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr 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 filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report.
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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations
Board, for the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana),
143 NLRB No. 4.
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issued a complaint against Manning , Maxwell & Moore , Incorporated , herein called
the Respondent , alleging that it had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respondent's
answer denies the allegations of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Alexandria, Louisiana, on April 16, 1963,
before Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr.' All parties were represented by counsel
and were afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to file briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case , I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Incorporated, is a New Jersey corporation engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of valves and related products.
The sole plant involved in this proceeding is located in Alexandria, Louisiana.
During the 12 months preceding the hearing herein, Respondent purchased supplies
and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped directly to said plant
from points and places located outside the State of Louisiana. The Respondent
concedes, and I find, that it is and has been engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IH. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Pursuant to an agreement for a consent election executed on November 15, 1962,
by the Respondent, the Union and the Acting Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region,2 a representation election was conducted on December 7, 1962, in the unit
described in the Recommended Order below. The tally of ballots, which was served
upon all the parties, reflect that out of approximately 397 eligible voters, 203 votes
were cast for the Union and 177 votes were cast against the Union.
On December 13, 1962, the Respondent filed objections to the election. Following
an investigation of the objections, the Acting Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region on February 8, 1963, issued a report on objections to election which over-
ruled the Respondent's objections and included a certification of representative, the
latter certifying that the Union had been designated and selected by a majority
of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit as their representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining. By letter dated February 15, 1963, the Union
requested the Respondent to bargain with it as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate and asked for a meeting for this purpose 3
By letter dated February 20, 1963, Respondent's works manager notified the Union
that Respondent would not meet and bargain with it on the ground that the Respondent
did not believe that the election was representative of the free choice of its employees
and that the Respondent did not agree with the certification issued by the National
Labor Relations Board. The basis for the instant proceeding arises from Respond-
ent's stated purpose to test the validity of the said certification.
No testimony was taken at the hearing in the instant proceeding, there being no
contention by the Respondent that it had newly discovered evidence or evidence which
i It is noted that although the transcript contains numerous errors in reflecting dis-
cussions between the Trial Examiner and respective counsel for the parties, the merits of
the case are not affected thereby. Thus, the issues in this case were framed by a written
stipulation of the parties which was copied into the record
2 The agreement for consent election provides, inter alia, that the determination of the
Regional Director Is to be final and binding upon any question, including questions as to
the eligibility of voters raised by any party relating in any manner to the election The
agreement further provides that the method of Investigation of objections and challenge'.,
Including the question whether a hearing should be held, is to be determined by the
Regional Director whose decision is to be final and binding
3 On February 20, 1963, a representative of the Union telephoned a representative of
the Respondent and again requested a meeting to commence negotiations.
MANNING, MAXWELL & MOORE, INCORPORATED 7
-was not available to it at the representation stage. As to the issue now being raised
by the Respondent, it is well settled that the Trial Examiner is bound by the Board's
ruling in the representation proceeding and the ensuing certification .4 On the basis
thereof, it is found and concluded that the Union was duly designated as collective-
bargaining representative by a majority of the employees in the unit, and, in
accordance with the certification, is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of all the employees in the unit in question within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
Hence, by refusing to bargain with the Union so certified, I find that the Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8(a) (5), and, derivatively, of Section 8(a) (1) thereof.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record in this and the representa-
tion proceeding, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the
Respondent, Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Incorporated, its agents, officers, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO, as the duly certified exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the following unit:
All production and maintenance employees of Manning, Maxwell & Moore,
Incorporated, in its Alexandria, Louisiana, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
foremen, leadmen, and guards and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to bargain collectively through said Union,
or any other labor organization of their own choosing.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the said certified Union as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit described above,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed contract.
(b) Post at its plant in Alexandria, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days of the receipt
of this Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith 6
* Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v N L R B , 313 U.S 146, 157-158; N.L R R v West
Kentucky Coal Company, 152 F. 2d 198, 200-201 (CA. 6), cert. denied 328 U S. 866;
Air Control Products of St. Petersburg, Inc., 139 NLRB 413. It is also established Board
policy that the Regional Director's determination in consent elections of the character here
involved is final, in the absence of fraud, misconduct, or gross mistake, even though the
Board might have reached a different conclusion in the first instance. General Tube
Company, 141 NLRB 441; Howard Rip pee, et al, d/b /a Pacific Multiforms Company, 138
NLRB 796 At the hearing the Respondent did not contend the commission of any fraud,
misconduct, or gross mistake on the part of the Regional Director, nor is there anything
in the record of the representation proceeding, which was incorporated with this case, to
indicate anything of such nature.
5In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be 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 Deci-
sion and Order."
6In 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."
$ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively , upon request, with International Union of
Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of all employees in the bargaining unit described below concerning wages,.
rates of pay, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment and,_
if an understanding is reached , embody it in a signed agreement . The bar-
gaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of Manning, Maxwell &
Moore , Incorporated , in its Alexandria , Louisiana , plant , excluding office`
clerical employees , foremen, leadmen , and guards and all other supervisofs
as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively as aforesaid , nor will we, in
any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to bargain collectively through the said Union
or any other labor organization of their own choosing.
MANNING, MAXWELL & MOORE, INCORPORATED,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other materials.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola ), 701 Loyola Avenue , New Orleans , Louisiana , 70113,
Telephone No. 529-2411 , if they have any question concerning this . notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Northern Stevedoring & Handling Corp ., Rothschild Alaska
Stevedoring Company , Inc., Alaska Freight Lines , Inc. and
International Longshoremen 's & Warehousemen 's Union, Local
1-82, and International Longshoremen 's & Warehousemen's
Union and Bernard Hulm . Cases Nos. 19-CA-1441 and 19-CB-
464. June 24, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 15, 1962, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents, Northern Stevedoring & Handling Corp., herein
called Northern; Rothschild Alaska Stevedoring, Inc., herein called
Rothschild; Alaska Freight Lines, Inc., herein called Alaska Freight;
International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 1-82,
herein called Local 1-82; and International Longshoremen's & Ware-
housemen's Union, herein called ILWU, had not engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the consolidated complaint, and recommend-
ing that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the
attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, both the General Counsel
and the Respondent Rothschild filed exceptions to the Intermediate
143 NLRB No. 8.