Meyers Bros. of Missouri, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 889 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

MEYERS BROS. OF MISSOURI, INC . 889
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of their bargaining rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively , upon request, with the above -named Union
as the exclusive representative of our employees in the above -described unit
concerning rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached , we will embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Tele-
phone No. 523-8100 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Meyers Bros. of Missouri , Inc. and Automotive, Petroleum and
Allied Industries Employees Union , Local 618, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America and United Industrial Work-
ers of North America of the Seafarers International Union of
North America, Atlantic , Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters Dis-
trict, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract . Case No. 14-CA-3279.
March 22, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 29, 1964, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued
his Decision in the above-entitled case, 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 Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, the above-named Party to the Contract,
hereinafter referred to as U.I.W., filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support of the exceptions. An
answering brief was filed by the Charging Party.
Pursuant to the provisions of 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 [Members Fanning, Brown, 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 and the entire record in this case, in-
cluding the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, to the
extent consistent herewith.
151 NLRB No. 101.
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondent
unlawfully assisted U.I.W. in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2)
by Supervisor Scurlock's solicitation of union designation cards
from Respondent's employees and by Respondent's recognizing and
entering into a contract with the U.I.W. at a time when it did not
represent an uncoerced majority of those employees. As more fully
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, on July 31, 1963, the
U.I.W. submitted six membership cards to the Respondent claiming
that it represented a majority of the nine persons then on Respond-
ent's payroll. The Respondent, after checking the cards against
its records, recognized and entered into a contract containing a
union-shop and checkoff clause. The Trial Examiner correctly
rejected the card signed by Scurlock because of his supervisory
status and excluded him from the unit. The Trial Examiner was
also correct in rejecting three of the remaining five cards because
he found they had been solicited and obtained by Scurlock.' Inas-
much as U.I.W. was thus in possession of cards apparently signed
without coercion by two of the eight employees in the agreed-upon
unit, it was not entitled to the recognition accorded it.
2. We also adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusions that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act by
enforcing the union-security provision of the contract and by making
welfare payments to the U.I.W. only on behalf of members while
failing to make such payments on behalf of nonmembers. We
further agree that it violated Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act
by checking off the dues of employee Lee Early Wilson for the
months of October 1 to December 31, 1963, although Wilson had
not authorized such deductions.
3. As part of the remedy, the Trial Examiner recommended
that Respondent's employees be reimbursed for initiation fees, dues,
and other sums paid pursuant to the union-shop provision of the
contract. However, such reimbursement is appropriate only to
those employees whose payments are shown to have been made under
coercion. The record in this case establishes such coercion as to
the three employees whose membership resulted from Scurlock's
unlawful solicitation, as well as all employees who joined subsequent
to the execution of the union-security agreement with the minority
1 As an additional ground for rejecting the three cards ; i e , those signed by Willie
Helm, Otto Kincaid , and Booker Hellem, the Trial Examiner held they were secured by
coercion because he found that Supervisor Scurlock told them that "the boss would not
kick too much" and that it was "okay" to sign, thus Impliedly suggesting that the
Respondent wanted them to sign Since the record does not indicate clearly to which
employees Scurlock addressed his remark , we do not rely on this evidence . Further, as
sufficient basis exists for finding that these cards may not be relied on as evidence of
majority designation , we find it unnecessary to determine whether Helm , Kincaid, Louis
Fellhauer , and Harry McDonald are supervisors and therefore do not adopt or pass
upon the Trial Examiner 's findings as to their status.
MEYERS BROS. OF MISSOURI, INC. S91
union.2 Consequently, we shall adopt the Trial Examiner's reim-
bursement order only insofar as it applies to these employees. We
shall also adopt the Trial Examiner's findings as to Lee Early
Wilson and shall order reimbursement to him with interest.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order
recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respond-
ent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the
following modifications :
1. Delete paragraph 1(d) and substitute the following:
"(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
to them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959."
2. Delete paragraph 2(c) and substitute the following:
"(c) Reimburse Lee Early Wilson, Willie Helm, Otto Kincaid,
Booker Hellem, and all those employees who became members of the
above-named labor organization after execution of the contract
of July 31, 1963, for initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other
moneys received by the above-named labor organization in payment
of their membership obligations, together with interest thereon, as
set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled
`The Remedy."'
3. Substitute the appendix attached hereto for the appendix
attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
APPENDIX
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 solicit our employees to execute union designa-
tion cards or application cards for membership in United
Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers Inter-
national Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and
2 Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc., 149 NLRB 910; see also Downtown Bakery Corp.,
139 NLRB 1352 , 1359, enfd . In pertinent part 330 F . 2d 921 ( C.A. 6) ; Fiore Brothers Oil
Co., Inc., 137 NLRB 191.
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, or in any other manner
offer illegal assistance and support to it or encourage our em-
ployees to join it.
WE WILL NOT maintain in effect and enforce our contract of
July 31, 1963, with the above-named labor organization.
WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with the above-named labor
organization as the collective-bargaining agent of our employ-
ees, unless and until such labor organization has been duly
certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of our said employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
WE WILL withdraw recognition from the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive bargaining agent of our employees,
unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified
by the Board as the exclusive representative of our employees.
WE WILL reimburse Lee Early Wilson, Willie Helm, Otto
Kincaid, Booker Hellem, and all those employees who became
members of the above-named labor organization after execution
of the contract of July 31, 1963, for initiation fees, dues, assess-
ments, or other moneys received by the above-named labor orga-
nization in payment of their membership obligations, together
with interest thereon, as set forth in the section of the Trial
Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of any labor organization.
MEYERS BROS. OF MISSOURI, INC.,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 4459 Federal Building, 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Mis-
souri, Telephone No. MAin 2-4142, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
MEYERS BROS. OF MISSOURI, INC. 893
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on January 28, 1964, and an amended charge filed on Febru-
ary 26, 1964, by Automotive, Petroleum and Allied Industries Employees Union,
Local 618, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, herein referred to as the Teamsters, the Regional
Director for Region 14 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the-
Board, issued a complaint on March 27, 1964, on behalf of the General Counsel,
of the Board against Meyers Bros. of Missouri, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the
Respondent or the Company, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(2), (3), and (1),
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.), herein-
called the Act. In its duly filed answer to the aforesaid complaint, Respondent, while
admitting certain of the allegations thereof, denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices. The United Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers,
International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters
District, AFL-CIO, party to the contract, herein referred to as the Union, although
not charged herein, also appeared and filed an answer which, in effect, denied the
material allegations of the complaint.'
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman
in St. Louis, Missouri, on May 19 and 20, 1964. All parties were presented and
afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present
oral argument, and to file briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs were filed by
all parties.
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, including the briefs of the
parties, and upon my observation of the demeanor of each of the witnesses testify-
ing before me, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Missouri corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Meyers
Bros. Parking System, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and both corporations are, and
at all times material herein have been, a single integrated enterprise engaged in the
operation of parking lots and garages with a principal office and place of business in
the city of St. Louis, Missouri. During the year immediately preceding the issuance
of the complaint herein, a representative period, the Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, purchased oil and gasoline for its various facilities
valued in excess of $50,000, which oil and gasoline were transported to its facilities
in the States of Missouri and Delaware directly from States of the United States
other than the States of Delaware and Missouri. Additionally, during the same
period, the Respondent's gross receipts from the operation of its parking lots and
garages exceeded $500,000.
It is admitted, and I find, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
1 At the outset of the hearing, the Union moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that as the Union was not notified of the tact that its contract with Respond-
ent dated July 31, 1963, was under attack until service of the amended charge herein
on February 28, 1964, more than 6 months after the date of the contract, Section 10(b)
of the Act proscribes the invalidation of the contract under the rule of Bryan Mfg Co.
[Lodge Local No. 1424, I.E1.M v. N.L.R B.], 362 U S. 411. This motion was denied
at the hearing and it is renewed again at this time by the Union. Upon further review
I do not now find merit in the Union's motion and contentions in support thereof While
It is true that the original charge herein filed on January 28, 1964, within 6 months
after the date of the aforesaid contract, named, In error, a sister division of the Union s
parent organization as the party to the contract, the original charge, like the amended
charge, did not chaige the party to the contract with any violation but alleged violations
only as to the Respondent herein The Board has long held that the limitation clause
of Section 10(b) relates only to the Board's powers to issue complaints and thus limits
the Board in proceeding against "Respondents" as distinguished from "parties " Parker
Brothers and Company, Inc, 101 NLRB 872 Thus Section 10(b) outlaws only those
unfair labor practices which occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing of the
charge with the Board and the service thereof upon the person against whom such charge
is made. Here there has been no charge made against the Union
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It is admitted, and I find and conclude, that the Teamsters, the Charging Party
herein, is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding , a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
It is admitted, and I find and conclude, that the Union is now and has been at all
times material to this proceeding a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ISSUES
1. Whether the Respondent, by Floating Manager Vernon Scurlock, unlawfully
assisted the Union in its campaign to organize the Respondent 's employees by urging
and soliciting the employees to sign designation cards for the Union. A subsidiary
issue is whether Scurlock was a supervisor at all times material.
2. Whether at the time the Respondent admittedly recognized and executed a
contract with the Union, containing a union-security clause, the Union represented
a majority of the Respondent's employees in a unit of employees work at parking
lots owned and leased by the Respondent or owned, leased, and managed by the
Respondent. A subsidiary issue here is whether five managers, who signed designa-
tion cards, were supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
3. Whether the Respondent unlawfully assisted the Union by deducting dues from
employees without receiving dues checkoff authorization slips from the said employees.
4. Whether the Respondent unlawfully assisted the Union and discriminated against
employees by failing to make welfare payments for employees who were not mem-
bers of the Union.
5. Whether the Respondent has maintained in effect with the Union and enforced
the union-security provision of the contract heretofore alluded to despite the fact
that at the time of the execution of the said contract the Union was an assisted labor
organization. This issue, of course, does not arise unless it is found that the Union
was in fact assisted and whether at the time of the execution of the agreement con-
taining the union-security provision the Union was, in fact, not the representative
of an uncoerced majority of the Respondent's employees.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The facts
1. The Respondent's parking lot operations
Meyers Bros. Parking System, Inc , operates a national and international chain
of automobile parking lots. The Respondent, a wholly owned subsidiary of Meyers
Bros. Parking System, operates parking lots in the city of St. Louis, Missouri Jerome
Stedelin is the vice president of the Respondent and is the active manager of the
Respondent's St. Louis operations.
As of July 31, 1963, the date upon which the Respondent recognized and executed
a contract with the Union, the Respondent either owned or leased parking lots at
six locations in the city of St. Louis 2
In addition to the foregoing, the Respondent since sometime before July 31, 1963,
managed, and still managed at the time of the hearing herein, parking lots at four
locations in the downtown St. Louis area owned by the Ambassador Garage Corpora-
tion, heieinafter referred to as Ambassador. Although the Respondent did not
own and does not own these lots or lease them, it manages them in the same manner
in which it runs its own leased or owned lots. Thus the Respondent sets the park-
ing rates on the lots, submits to Ambassador work reports, deposits the money
taken in on the lots and supplies Ambassador with duplicate deposit receipts, and,
since a few days after July 31, 1963, has been paying the employees on the Ambas-
sador lots and billing Ambassador for these services. In return for these services
the Respondent is paid by Ambassador on a fixed-fee basis. All of the Respondent's
parking lots, whether owned, leased, or managed by Respondent, have signs designat-
ing Meyers Bros. Parking System as the operator of the lots with the exception of
the Pierce Building lot, one of the Ambassador lots 33
All of the individuals working on any of the aforesaid lots, whether owned, leased,
or managed, wore similar uniforms with the words "Meyers Bros Logo" imprinted
These lots are located at 914 North Ninth Street, 915 North Ninth Street. 928 North
Ninth Street, Seventh and Cole Street, 1100 Washington Avenue, and 112 South 12th
Street.
8 The other Ambassador lots were known as 711 Lucas, 723 Lucas, and 811 Lucas.
MEYERS BROS. OF MISSOURI, INC. 895
on the backs thereof. Prior to and on July 31 the Respondent was not handling
the payroll for Ambassador but rather Ambassador was paying the employees work-
ing on its lots under the Respondent's management and was keeping other payroll
and workmen's compensation records. The transfer of the payroll from Ambassador
to the Respondent was effectuated only after the unionization of the lots as here-
inafter described. As noted above, the Respondent hires, discharges, and disciplines
all of the employees on all of the lots. There is no question that if Ambassador
wanted a certain individual hired or discharged, however, this would be done. But,
in practice, Ambassador never has asserted such authority.
In normal operations, the employees are interchanged on all of the lots and are
sent to the various lots as the pressure of business necessitates . Additionally,
new employees are normally trained at one of the lots operated by the Respondent
for Ambassador and then are switched to and from all of the lots whether owned,
leased or operated by the Respondent. In practice, some employees may be assigned
to one lot for a period of approximately a month, or in some instances more.
Before shortly after July 31, the employees were paid by the owner of the lot, but
after that date they were all paid, as heretofore set forth, by the Respondent. Even
before that date, however, it made no difference by whom a man was paid; he never-
theless worked at all of the lots as the press of business dictated.
Approximately 11 years before the date of the hearing in this proceeding, and
before Jerome Stedelin's association with the Respondent, Stedelin's employees were
represented by a Teamsters local. At that time Stedelin operated lots under his own
name Between that time and July 31, 1963, the Union periodically picketed the
lot which Stedelin owned and then sold to Meyer Bros. known as the Ninth Street
Garage. For 3 or 4 years during that period of time the picketing was conducted by
the Teamsters on a 24-hour-a-day basis. For a period of approximately 2 months
preceding July 31, 1963, the Teamsters picketed the lot at 811 Lucas Avenue, which
is one of the lots owned by Ambassador and operated for it by the Respondent?
2. The Union's organizing campaign and Scurlock's part therein-the recognition
and contract and Stedelin's role
Joseph Hughes, a union business representative, was apparently the individual
assigned to organize the Respondent's employees. He approached Vernon Scurlock
while the latter was at work at one of the Respondent's own parking lots and asked
Scurlock if the Respondent's employees were union. This meeting must have
occurred lust before July 31 or on July 31. When Scurlock answered that the
employees were not unionized, Hughes asked if the employees would take some
union membership application cards. Scurlock took four cards from Hughes,
signed one himself, and gave one each to Willie Helm, Otto Kincaid, and Booker
Hellem.° Scurlock told each of them that he had signed and asked them if they
were going to sign. After they each signed the cards they returned them to
Scurlock who returned them to the union office and gave them to a female employee
whom Scurlock could not identify. When he gave the employees the cards, Scurlock
told them that the "boss"-evidently referring to Stedelin-would not "kick" too
much and that it was "O.K." to sign up.°
On July 31, 1963, Stedelin was visited by Hughes at the garage at 914 North Ninth
Street where Stedelin has his office. Hughes laid down five or six cards and told
Stedelin, "I represent your men."
Stedelin looked at the cards "halfway," and then gave them to office employee
Doris Wesselschmidt who checked the cards against the employees' signatures on
their social security and tax deduction forms. This meeting occurred early in the
day and on that same afternon Stedelin met at the Union's offices with Hughes and
another union representative to negotiate a contract. They met again at 7 that
evening together with the Union's attorney. That evening the contract was signed.
The contract contained, inter alia, a wage increase raising the minimum wage of the
employees from $62.22 a week to $64 a week which Stedelin stated was for the
purpose of covering the employees' $5 per month dues to the Union.
The agreement also included a union-security clause which required employees
to become members of the Union on and after the 31st day of employment, or on
and after the 31st day following the effective date of the agreement. The agreement
4 From the uncontroverted testimony and admissions of Jerome Stedelin. None of the
parties contested seriously any of the foregoing facts. Accordingly, Stedelin's testimony
and admissions are credited.
6 Booker Hellem is a brother of Willie Helm but spells his name differently.
O From the uncontroverted and credited testimony of Vernon Scurlock.
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
also called for checkoff of dues if so authorized by the employees. Additionally the
agreement provided for paid holidays, bonus payments, sick leave, bereavement
clause, grievance and arbitration rights, bail bond and legal counsel paid by company
in event of accidents, coffee breaks, washup time, and health and welfare coverage
paid by the Respondent.
With regard to the scope of the recognition, the contract stated:
Article l-Recognition
(A) The company recognizes the union as the sole collective-bargaining agent
for those employees of the company covered by this agreement.
(B) The term "employee" as used in this agreement shall include all drivers,
helpers and warehousemen, employed by the company, but shall exclude super-
visors and guards as defined in the Federal Labor Management Relations Act.
Wherever the term "employee" appears in this agreement, it refers only to those
employees for whom the union is recognized as the Bargaining Agent.
Stedelin admitted that after the contract was executed he visited Clarence M.
Turley, an owner of Ambassador, whose lots, as set forth above, were operated on a
fee basis for Ambassador by the Respondent, and told him about the unionization of
the Respondent's lots. Turley told him that he wanted no part of the Union, and also
instructed Stedelin to put all of the employees who had worked on Ambassador lots
on the Respondent's payroll which the Respondent did shortly thereafter. Upon
placing all of the employees who had worked on the Ambassador lot on the Respond-
ent's payroll, Stedelin informed them that they were now being paid by the Respond-
ent. On examination, Stedelin could not remember whether he told the employees
on the lots owned by Ambassador that the employees were in the Union. He admitted
that he might have told them so as follows- "If I did, I might have told them that
they should fill out a card or something; I don't remember."
When the Teamsters continued to picket the lot at 811 Lucas after the contract was
signed, Stedelin requested of the Union's business representative, Hughes, that the
men be given buttons to identify them as union employees. The Union then supplied
the employees with buttons marked with a designation of a Local 300 of the Union.
They also were given identification cards.
When asked whether he recognized the Union in order to prevent labor problems
with the Teamsters Union, Stedelin answered that he did not sign with the Union to
prevent labor problems but to stop them. He said he did not know what else he could
do and it seemed like the end of the pioblems with the Teamsters. He felt that if he
showed the Teamsters that the employees were now represented by a union they would
cease the picketing of the 811 Lucas lot 7
3. Employee complement and designation cards-status of lot managers
As set forth above, when Hughes presented Stedelin with union designation cards,
Stedelin saw that there were five or six and turned them over to his office employee
for verification as to signature. At the hearing the Union produced, on subpena, six
designation cards. These cards, all signed by individuals employed on the Respond-
ent's own parking lots and not on Ambassador's lots, all bore the date of July 31,
1963. With regard to the signatures, there was no contention by either the General
Counsel or any other party to this proceeding that the signatures were not genuine.
Accordingly, I accept the signatures as being the signatures of the employees desig-
nated thereon.
As of July 31, 1963, the Respondent on its own lots employed nine employees.
Of these nine, the six who signed cards were Louis A. Fellhauer, Vernon Scurlock,
Harry McDonald, Willie Helm, Otto Kincaid, and Booker Hellem Of these six
employees Scurlock is Respondent's "floating manager," Willie Helm is the night
manager of the garage at 914 Ninth Street, Otto Kincaid is the manager of that
garage during the day, Louis Fellhauer is the manager of the lot at Seventh & Cole, and
Harry McDonald is the manager of the lot at 1100 Washington Avenue. This was
true as of July 31, 1963.8
Stedelin testified without contradiction that Scurlock is the Respondent's floating
manager and that he goes from lot to lot in his daily work in order to check up on the
employees of the various lots. In addition to conceding that Scurlock is a supervisor,
Stedelin admitted that Scurlock once fired an employee for not washing cars on a
Saturday. Stedelin testified that Scurlock had the right to hire and fire employees.
7A11 of the foregoing from the uncontroverted and credited testimony and admissions
of Jerome Stedelin.
8 From the uncontroverted and credited testimony and admissions of Jerome Stedelin.
MEYERS BROS . OF MISSOURI, INC. 897
Scurlock, moreover , has the authority to and does transfer employees from day to day
and for periods of time, varying in length, from one lot to another without initially
obtaining approval of Vice President Stedelin. Scurlock , moreover, recommended
the hire of two employees and both of these employees were hired upon his recom-
mendation . As a matter of fact in the case of Mack Jenkins, Scurlock did the hiring
himself and Stedelin was evidently out of town when the hiring was done.
With regard to the other manager, Stedelin testified , again without contradiction,
that they all had the same authority to hire, discharge , discipline , and transfer
employees as did Scurlock . In the case of the other managers , however, Stedelin did
not testify as to any specific instances where they exercised this authority . However,
Stedelin did state as follows : "I have told all of my managers that they are not a
manager until they have fired somebody."
Stedelin further testified that each manager has the authority to and does actually,
in practice , transfer employees from one lot to another . They do this without any
request to Stedelin for permission to do so. It is apparent that this is done in order to
keep sufficient men on each lot when such lot is busy . On the other hand, it was also
shown through office employee Wesselschmidt that in the case of Managers Fellhauer
and Willie Helm that these individuals are normally on the lots, on which they are
manager, alone , and do not have anyone working with them. However , under the
system of transferring employees around, it is probable that there are times when these
individuals do have employees working with them on the lots.
With regard to the question of whether these managers were supervisors , it should
be noted that of the five of the nine employees , five were called managers and of these
were five out of the six individuals who signed cards. Accordingly , if they were
supervisors at the time , the Union did not have majority status among the Respond-
ent's employees.
On July 31, 1963, in addition to the employees who worked on lots owned or leased
by the Respondent , there were 11 employees working on lots operated by the Respond-
ent, there were 11 employees working on lots operated by the Respondent for Ambas-
sador. As heretofore noted, employees were changed from lot to lot as the press of
business necessitated . Stedelin testified without contradiction that it did not make
any difference on which lot a man was actually assigned for payroll purposes-that
is, whether he was on the Respondent 's payroll or Ambassador 's payroll-he never-
theless could be transferred from lot to lot regardless of whether it was a lot owned
or leased by the Respondent or one which was operated by Respondent for Ambas-
sador. Whether these employees should be consideied as part of the Respondent's
employee complement in order to determine whether the Union had a majority as of
July 31, 1963 , will be discussed below.
In connection with these employees who worked on the so-called Ambassador lots,
the contract that was entered into between the Respondent and the Union had
annexed thereto the signatures of 14 employees , 10 of whom were employed on the
Ambassador lots. The dates of these signatures is not known nor was there any
evidence submitted at the hearing which would indicate what dates these employees
affixed their signatures to the contract . According to Stedelin, these signatures were
not affixed to the contract when he signed the contract on behalf of the Respondent.
Moreover , Stedelin testified that when the contract was entered into subsequent to the
negotiations on July 31, it was understood by the parties that it was to cover only
the employees on lots owned and leased by the Respondent and that the majority
status was based upon such employees and the inclusion of the Ambassador employees
was not contemplated.
4. The dues deductions
It was stipulated at the hearing that during October, November , and December,
1963, the Respondent deducted dues from the earnings of employees Lee Early
Wilson and Sam Moshensky . However, this stipulation was modified to the extent
that Sam Moshensky was not truly an employee of the Respondent and performed
no services for the Respondent , but was, rather, the father of the lessor of one of the
lots which the Respondent operated and was on the payroll merely as a favor to the
lessor for the purposes of having Moshensky covered by the union welfare plan. The
Respondent was reimbursed by the lessor for the moneys paid to and on behalf of
Moshensky . With regard to these dues deductions , the parties further stipulated that
Respondent deducted these dues from the wages of Wilson and Moshensky for a
period of 3 months from October 1, 1963, through December 31, 1963, and that
Respondent submitted the dues to the Union for these employees without having
received dues checkoff authorizations from them.
783-133-66-vol. 151-58
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The enforcement of the union-security clause of the agreement
It was stipulated at the hearing and the parties admitted in their answers to the
complaint that the Respondent maintained and enforced the contract's union-security
clause and deducted dues from employees paid pursuant thereto and paid such dues
over to the Union. With regard thereto, 23 signed dues authorization checkoff cards
were submitted to the Respondent from August through October 1963.
6. The union welfare payments
Doris Wesselschmidt testified that, as the Respondent's office employee and record
keeper, she made no welfare payments for employees who were not dues-paying
members of the Union. The union welfare plan report forms submitted by the
Respondent to the Union for the months of October, November, and December 1963,
verify Wesselschmidt's testimony and I credit the same.
B. Findings and conclusions
The General Counsel contends that at the time the Respondent recognized the
Union and executed a contract with it, the Union did not represent an uncoerced
majority in a unit of employees working at the parking lots owned or leased by the
Respondent and that, furthermore, the Union at that time did not represent an
uncoerced majority in a unit of employees working at parking lots owned, leased,
or managed by the Respondent for Ambassador. The General Counsel argues that
with regard to the Respondent-owned and -leased location there were nine employees
working on July 31, 1963. For these employees, which the Union and the Respond-
ent through Vice President Stedelin contend were the only employees the Union
sought to represent, the Union submitted six membership application cards. Then,
according to the General Counsel, of these six cards, one, that of Vernon Scurlock,
was from a conceded supervisor. Moreover, the General Counsel further argues,
four of the five other cards were from individuals who are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. Therefore, the General Counsel contends, there was only one
card to support a majority showing for a unit consisting of nine individuals. If the
supervisors are removed from the unit and their cards disregarded, there still
remained only one card fiom a unit of four individuals, clearly not a majority. In
the alternative, the General Counsel argues, in the event that the other four managers,
aside from Scurlock, are found not to be supervisors, then the three cards obtained
by Scurlock from the other employees were tainted because Scurlock was a super-
visor. Accordingly, from a unit of eight individuals, three of the cards out of five
submitted were not dependable as proof of majority because they were coerced,
which left two cards to support a claim of majority representation in the unit of
eight individuals. This, of course, contends the General Counsel, is insufficient to
show that the Union was a majority representative.
The Respondent contends that it recognized the Union and entered into a contract
with it in good faith believing that the Union represented a majority of the employees
of the Respondent in a unit consisting of the employees employed at lots owned and
leased by the Respondent and that therefore, the Respondent cannot be held to have
violated the Act. The Union, contending that the General Counsel has failed to
establish a case by a preponderance of the evidence, argues, as does the Respondent,
that the only employees whom the Union sought were those working on lots leased
or owned by the Respondent and not those operated by the Respondent on behalf of
Ambassador. Furthermore, the Union contends the cards were sufficient to establish
the Union's majority in that all the employees, including Scurlock and the other four
managing employees were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act; and that
even if Scurlock did indulge as a supervisor in the obtaining of some of the cards, it
was without the consent of the Respondent and Scurlock's activity cannot be held to
be an act of the Respondent on an agency basis. Accordingly, contends the Union,
at the time the contract was entered into the Union had a majority and the General
Counsel has failed to prove that the Respondent assisted the Union or that the con-
tract entered into with the Union was not a lawful contract under the Act.
I find merit in the General Counsel's contentions and I find, as a matter of law,
the General Counsel has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Union
was not a majority representative of the employees of the Respondent at the time the
Respondent recognized it and contracted with it.
For the purposes of discussion I will assume that the unit for which the Union
sought recognition and which was the subject of the contract entered into between the
parties on July 31, 1963, was the unit of approximately nine employees who were on
the Respondent's payroll for lots owned and leased by the Respondent only and that
MEYERS BROS. OF MISSOURI, INC. 899
such unit did not include employees on lots operated by the Respondent for Ambas-
sador. For these nine individuals, as heretofore set forth, there were six cards sub-
mitted. There is no contention to the contrary. Thus, analysis of these six cards
is necessary to determine whether there was a majority supporting the Union on
July 31, 1963.
Of these nine cards, one was that of Vernon Scurlock. As testified to credibly by
Stedelin, Scurlock is the Respondent 's "floating manager" and Stedelin conceded that
Scurlock is a supervisor . Aside from this concession , however, it is clear on other
facts that Scurlock is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Thus, Scurlock had
the right to hire and discharge employees and, on at least one occasion, exercised his
authority to do so by firing an employee for not washing cars. Furthermore, although
Scurlock does park cars himself, usually until 9 o'clock in the morning, he has the
authority and has exercised and does from day to day exercise the authority to
transfer employees from one lot to another without obtaining any approval from any
superior. Moreover, he has also the unquestioned authority to discharge employees
whom he catches stealing without first reporting the incident to Vice President
Stedelin. Moreover, it is clear that Scurlock's duties, when he goes (floats) from lot
to lot, consist of, among other things, observing the employees to see that they aie
performing their work in accordance with instructions and also to help parking lot
attendants when they are busy. Moreover, Stedelin testified, Scurlock at one time,
when the Respondent was in need of employees and in the absence of Stedelin, hired
an employee. Accordingly, I find and conclude, on the basis of the entire record with
regard to Scurlock's duties, that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act since
he not only possesses the indicia of supervisor authority but exercises that authority
in his daily work.
Thus, it is clear that Scurlock's card may not be considered in support of the
Union's majority claim. With regard to the other cards, Scurlock's credited testimony
shows that he obtained cards from three other of the individuals whom Respondent
claims are in the unit. These individuals were Willie Helm, Otto Kincaid, and
Booker Hellem. Although Scurlock testified that he did not coerce the employees
into signing the cards and did not persuade them, he nevertheless admitted that when
he talked to them at the time he gave the cards, he told them that the boss would not
"kick too much" if they signed the cards, and that it was "okay" to sign.
As contended by the General Counsel, such conduct is to be attributed to the
Respondent by the fact that Scurlock was its agent for the purpose of supervising
the work of the employees and communicating the wishes of the Respondent. The
fact that there is no evidence in the record that the Respondent specifically authorized
or instructed Scurlock to solicit cards from the employees is not sufficient to relieve
the Repondent of responsibility for, if not complicity in, the Scurlock solicitation 0
The Board and the courts have long held that an employer may be held to have
assisted a union even though the acts of the supervisors in providing the assistance
were not expressly authorized or might not be attributable to the Employer on strict
application of the rules of respondeat superior 10 I further conclude and find that,
when Scurlock told the employees that "the boss did not care" and that it was "okay,"
he was inferring that the Respondent wanted them to sign. Such solicitation is
coercive and constitutes unlawful assistance to the Union
Upon the basis of the foregoing finding, I further find the three cards involved
cannot be held to have been uncoerced. Therefore, with Scurlock's removal by
operation of law from the unit there remained eight employees. From these eight
employees there were submitted five cards. Of these five cards three cannot be said
to have been uncoerced. Accordingly, there remains but two possible cards upon
which the Union can rely to support a majority status in a unit of eight individuals.
It is clear mathematically that such a showing is not sufficient to support a majority.
I therefore find and conclude that as of the time that the Respondent recognized
and entered into the contract with the Union, the Union was not the majority repre-
sentative of the Respondent's employees in the unit of the Respondent's employees
which both the Respondent and the Union contend is the unit upon which they
agreed.
Moreover, even if I were to find that there was no coercion in the obtaining of the
cards, I would still find that the Union did not have a majority as of the date of the
recognition and execution of the agreement with the Union. Of the six cards
0 See Local 636 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry etc v N L R.B. (Detroit Assn of Plumbing Con-
tractors ), 287 F 2d 354 (C A D C ), and International Association of Machinists, Toot
and Die Makers Lodge No. 3 i v. N L.R B. (Serrick Corp ), 311 U S. 72, 80.
20 Supra.
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
submitted by the Union to support its alleged majority status , one, as noted above,
was that of Vernon Scurlock whom I have found , above, to be a supervisor. There
were, in addition to Scurlock 's card, cards from Willie Helm, who is a night manager
of the garage at 914 North Ninth Street , Otto Kincaid, who is the day manager of
the same garage , Louis Fellhauer , manager of the Seventh and Cole lot, and Harry
McDonald, manager of the 1100 Washington Avenue lot . All of these individuals
were managers of lots owned or leased by the Respondent on July 31, 1963. Thus,
according to Vice President Stedelin's own testimony , which I credit , out of the nme
individuals , five were managers and out of the six cards submitted to support the
majority status in the unit of nine employees , five were from managers.
I have already found Manager Scurlock to have been a supervisor . With regard to
the other four managers , though Stedelin testified that there were times when they
were on the lots alone , he further testified that all of his managers had the same
authority as Scurlock . He further stated that he did not consider a man a nianagei
until he had fired someone . Although the number of managers in relation to the
number of employees would seem to be disproportionately high, I conclude that
there were times when all of these managers had employees working under them
inasmuch as the employees were shifted from lot to lot as business necessitated.
Therefore , it cannot be said, as contended by the Respondent , that certain of the
managers such as Willie Helm who was quite often on the lot alone at night, did not
have employees to supervise . While the proportion of supervisors to employees
would be relatively great and would ordinarily be reason to find that the lot managers,
aside from Scurlock, were not supervisors , I find that because of the peculiar nature
of the Respondent 's business and the fact that employees are shifted from lot to lot
as business necessitates , there are times when all of these lot managers exercise
independent judgment in directing employees at their work and have the power and
authority to discipline and discharge them and effectively to recommend the same.
Certainly Stedelin's testimony in this regard cannot be ignored. He stated that all of
the managers are on an equal basis and possess the same authority as does Scurlock.
Accordingly , on the record as a whole, I find that Willie Helm, Otto Kincaid, Louis
Fellhauer, and Harry McDonald , in addition to Scurlock , were supervisors within
the meaning of the Act.
I further conclude that because five of the six cards submitted to support the Union's
majority claim were those of supervisors , the Union did not have a majority of the
employees in the unit contended by the Union and the Respondent to be the one for
which the bargaining was had and the contract was made. I therefore conclude that
the Union did not on this basis possess such majority status as would be necessary
to support its claim.
Accordingly , for the reasons heretofore set forth , I find that when the Respondent
recognized and bargained with the Union on July 31, it unlawfully assisted the
Union and thereby violated Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, I do not find it necessary to discuss or make
a finding as to whether the Union did not enjoy majority status in a unit consisting of
employees of lots on or leased by the Respondent and lots managed by the Respondent
for Ambassador . However, because higher authority may review my findings here,
I make the further finding that as of July 31, 1963 , because the Respondent had
complete control over the employees which it had hired on both its lots and the lots
of Ambassador , all of these employees were employees of the Respondent as of that
date. The decisive elements in establishing an employer and employee relationship
are complete control over the hire, discharge , discipline , and promotion of employees,
rates of pay , supervision , and determination of policy matters . All of these elements
were present with regard to the Respondent in its relationships with the employees
of both its own lots and Ambassador lots.]' I therefore conclude and find that on
the day of the recognition and contract with the Union , all of the employees on lots
both owned or leased by the Respondent and owned by Ambassador and managed
by Respondent were employees of the Respondent performing the same type of work.
Moreover , I do not find that the Union's and the Respondent's contention that
the recognition was granted and a contract entered into in the good -faith belief
that the Union represented a majority of the Respondent 's employees in the unit
upon which they allegedly agreed could , in any event , constitute a defense to the
charge of assistance presented here. The Board and the courts have held that
nothing in the Act prescribes scienter as an element of unlawful assistance such as is
involved in the instant case. The activity made unlawful by Section 8(a) (2) is an
employer's support of a union which does not enjoy majority status . Here that
support was an accomplished fact. More need not be shown , for even if the
11 Spe Roane-Andcraon Company, 95 NLRB 1501, 1503.
MEYERS BROS. OF MISSOURI, INC. 901
Respondent in good faith, and mistakenly, recognized the Union, the employees'
rights have been invaded and, therefore, it follows that this prohibited conduct
cannot be excused by a showing of good faith.12 Additionally, in view of Stedelin's
admitted desire to sign with the Union to end Teamsters picketing and the fact that
Stedelin knew that five of the cards were from managers whom we considered
supervisors and not employees, it cannot readily be concluded that the Respondent
did act in good faith.
In coming to the conclusion that the Respondent unlawfully assisted the Union,
I do not overlook the testimony, which was uncontroverted, of Vice President
Stedelin to the effect that he was, at least, very willing to recognize the Union and
sign a contract with it for the purpose of stopping the Teamsters picketing of the
Lucas Avenue lot which had been continuous for several months prior to the demand
of the Union.13
It follows, and I further conclude and find, that by enforcing the union-security
provision of the contract, and giving full force and effect to the same, the Respondent
further violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act because at the time such
union-security agreement was entered into and all of the time during which it was
enforced, the assisted Union was not in fact the representative of an uncoerced
majority of the Respondent's employees, and the contract required membership in
the Union as a condition of employment.14
I further find, as noted above, and it was admitted and stipulated, that the Respond-
ent checked off dues from the salary of employee Lee Early Wilson for the months
of October 1 to December 31, 1963, which dues it remitted to the Union. It was
further stipulated, and I find, that Wilson had not authorized such checkoff and
deduction of dues from his paycheck. It is well settled that payment of dues by an
employer without authorization from employee constitutes unlawful financial assist-
ance within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act.15
With regard to the dues checkoff of the remaining 23 employees who did sign
authorizations, I find that, under the circumstances here presented, the employees
were coerced into joining the Union and signing checkoff authorizations. In so
finding, I rely upon (1) the initial coercive inducement by Supervisor Vernon Scur-
lock of the individuals who signed the union membership application cards, (2) the
resulting taint on the alleged majority status and on the recognition and contract
which followed, (3) Vice President Stedelin's admission that he signed to rid himself
of the Teamsters picketing, and (4) Stedelin's admission that he "might" have told
employees to join the Union.
Additionally, at noted above, Doris Wesselschmidt credibly testified, and records
introduced into evidence affirm, that the Respondent made payments to the Union's
welfare fund only for those employees who were members of the Union and failed
to make such welfare payments for employees who were not members of the Union.
The Board and the courts have long ruled that a contract between an employer and
the majority representative of its employees cannot discriminate between groups of
employees who would ordinarily be in the bargaining unit.16 Here, the Union, as
found above, was not even majority representative of all of the employees in the
Respondent's employ. Thus, by withholding the welfare payment benefits from the
,employees of the Respondent who were not members of the Union, the Respondent
assisted the Union within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act and its failure
"See Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corporation, 122 NLRB 1289, affd. sub nom . Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. N L.R B., 366 U.S. 731.
151 do not rely for this finding upon the fact that the contract called for a wage in-
crease which approximated the amount of union dues which the employees were required
to pay under the contract. The reason for this is, as pointed out by the Union, that
the contract called for other terms and conditions of employment which improved the
terms and conditions of employment of the employees of the Respondent over those which
existed before the contract. Therefore, I find that the contract was a full and complete
bargaining agreement which was not made only for the purpose of increasing the wage
payment to cover the cost of the union dues
1* See Aaron Trosch at al., d/b /a Maryland News Company, 138 NLRB 215, enfd. 321
F. 2d 692 (C A. 4) ; Duralite Co., Inc, 132 NLRB 425, 428.
16 Dixie Bedding Manufacturing Company, 121 NLRB 189; Dan T. Edwards and Son
d/b/a Western Auto Associate Store, 143 NLRB 703
16 Rockawaij News Supply Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 1056 and cases cited therein ; Bester
William Steele v. Louisville d Nashville Railroad Co., et al, 323 U.S. 192, 202.
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to make welfare payments with regard to the nonunion employees constitute dis-
crimination against such employees which discrimination had the effect of encourag-
ing membership in the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.17
Accordingly, I find that by failing to make welfare payments for employees who
were not members of the Union the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
(3) of the Act.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The conduct of the Respondent set forth in section IV, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations described in section I, above, 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 obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that the Board issue an order requiring that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, including the posting of
appropriate notices, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended
Having found that Respondent, Meyers Bros. of Missouri, Inc , has rendered
unlawful assistance to the Union in soliciting union designation cards from the
Respondent's employees, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and
desist therefrom.
Having found that the Respondent has rendered unlawful assistance to the Union
by recognizing and entering into a contract with the Union at a time when the Union
was not the majority representative of an uncoerced majority of the Respondent's
employees, it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to withdraw
recognition from the Union and that the said contract be denied any force or effect
and that the Respondent withhold recognition from the Union unless and until the
Union has been certified by the Board.
Having found that the Respondent entered into an unlawful contract containing a
union-security and checkoff clause, I shall recommend that Respondent's employees
be reimbursed for initiation fees, dues, and any other moneys they were unlawfully
required to pay by reason of the said unlawful union-security provision,18 with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully assisted the Union and discriminated
against employees by paying into the union welfare fund only for those employees
who were members of the said Union, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Meyers Bros. of Missouri, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Automotive, Petroleum and Allied Industries Employees Union, Local 618,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3 United Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers International
Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By rendering illegal assistance to the Union in soliciting employees' signatures
on union membership application cards the Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in conduct forbidden by Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the Act
5. By rendering assistance to the Union and by recognizing and entering into,
maintaining, and giving effect to an unlawful contract with the Union, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in conduct proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) and (2)
of the Act.
17 Supra.
18 Bernhardt Bros Tugboat Service, Inc, 142 NLRB 851, enfd 328 F. 2d 757 (CA. 7) ;
cf. Air Master Corporation , 142 NLRB 181, where no reimbursement was ordered be-
cause there was no evidence of coercion.
METERS BROS . OF MISSOURI , INC. 903
6. By enforcing the union -security provision and by deducting dues from its
employees pursuant to the union -security provisions of the contract , the Respondent
has violated Section 8(a) (1), (2 ), and (3 ) of the Act.
7. By failing to pay into the union welfare fund on behalf of all its employees who
were not members of the Union, the Respondent has unlawfully assisted the Union in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 2) of the Act and has discriminated against
employees within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid contract constitutes unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , it is recommended that Respondent , Meyers Bros. of
Missouri , Inc., its officers , agents, successors and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Soliciting its employees to execute union membership application cards on
behalf of United Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers International
Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf , Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-
CIO, or in any other manner offering illegal assistance and support to it or encourag-
ing its employees to join it.
(b) Maintaining in effect and enforcing its contract of July 31, 1963, with the said
Union, or any modification, supplement , renewal, or extension thereof, provided
that nothing contained herein contained shall force or require the Respondent to
change, alter, or vary the substantive provisions of the said contract.
(c) Recognizing or bargaining with United Industrial Workers of North America
the Seafarers International Union of North America , Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and
Inland Waters District , AFL-CIO, as the collective -bargaining agent of its employees,
unless and until such labor organization has been duly certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive representative of said employees , or recognizing or
bargaining with any labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees at a time when such labor organization does not represent an uncoerced
majority of such employees.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in exercising rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
( a) Withdraw recognition from United Industrial Workers of North America of
the Seafarers International Union of North America , Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and
Inland Waters District , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employees
unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified by the Board as the
exclusive representative of such employees.
(b) Post at its lots either owned, leased , or operated by it in St. Louis, Missouri,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 19 [Board 's Appendix substituted
for Trial Examiner 's Appendix .] Copies of said notice to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 14, shall , after being signed by a duly authorized
representative of Respondent , be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Make its employees whole for initiation fee, dues, and other moneys paid by
said employees to the said Union since July 31, 1963 , with interest thereon at 6
percent per annum.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, timecards , social security payment
records, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to compute
the amount of reimbursement due hereunder.
"If this Recommended Order is 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 is 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 Decision and Order."
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Notify the Regional Diector for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.20
21 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
Wonder State Manufacturing Company and Lodge No. 1568, In-
ternational Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. p26-
CA-1788. March 22, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 18, 1964, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued
his Decision 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 attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of 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 McCulloch 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, brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Wonder
State Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order with the following modifications :
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(e) :
"In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist the Union named above, or any other labor
151 NLRB No. 99.