Overton Markets, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 615 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

"OVERTON MARKETS" 615
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The , Respondent, Eastern Die Company , is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Paul Arel,
Reginald Gagnon , Roland Cyr, Paul Fortier, and Robert Polley, thereby discourag-
ing membership in the above Union , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the section III, C, above , the Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning' of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Overton Markets, Inc.; J . W. Overton & Son, Inc.; Marvin B.
Overton , Inc.; W. S. Overton, Inc.; Thomas L. Overton, Inc.;
Lilton Davis ; Frank McLaurin ; all d/b/a "Overton Markets"
and Local 305, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work-
ers of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, Local 233, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 5-RC-3892P and 5-RC-3825. May 14, 1963
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed I under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held in the consolidated proceeding
before Louis Aronin and Joseph R. Wirts, hearing officers.' The hear-
ing officers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial er-
ror and are hereby affirmed.3
1. Each of the petitioning Unions seeks to represent employees in
a unit covering 10 retail grocery stores located in the vicinity of Nor-
3 The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing . The Petitioner in Case
No. 5-RC-3822 is referred to herein as Meat Cutters, and the Petitioner in Case No.
5-RC-3825 is referred to herein as Retail Clerks
' Hearing Officer Aronin presided over the hearing on July 9 and 10 and August 8, 1962,
while Hearing Officer Wirts presided on August 15, 16, and 17, 1962.
8 Lilton Davis and Frank McLaurin , who purchased Stores from A. W. Overton after the
petitions herein were filed , moved to dismiss the petitions as to them , and some of the
corporations moved to dismiss the petitions entirely, on the ground that ( 1) Davis and
McLaurin did not receive due notice of the proceeding , and (2 ) Hearing Officer Aronin
denied their request for a continuance of the hearing . The hearing began at 10.30 a.m.
on July 9 , 1962, without the presence or knowledge of Davis and McLaurin . Both were
present, however , during that afternoon and at all subsequent times. At the beginning of
the hearing on the morning of July 10 , the hearing officer informed Davis and McLaurin
what the issues were in these cases, and that they were parties to the proceeding with the
right to participate fully and to retain counsel , and adjourned the hearing for 3 hours so
they could obtain counsel . Counsel for Davis and McLaurin appeared when the hearing
reconvened and represented them thereafter . On the afternoon of July 10, the hearing
officer denied his request that the hearing be continued until he prepared his case, but on
July 19, while the hearing was recessed as noted above, until August 8, he was provided
with a transcript of the hearing for July 9 and 10 . Under these circumstances, we find
that ample opportunity was provided for that preparation of his case , and that no preju-
dice has been shown . The motions to dismiss are, therefore , hereby denied.
142 NLRB No. 71.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
folk, Virginia. The ownership and operation of these stores is divided
among, seven companies,, all-trading as "Overton Markets." The com-
panies contend that they are not a single employer and that the peti-
tions should be dismissed because the 10-store units are inappropriate.
In addition, it is clear` that two of the stores do not, alone, meet the
Board's standard for asserting jurisdiction over retail operations.
There is no bargaining history.
Of the seven companies, five are corporations and two, Davis and
McLaurin, are individual proprietorships. Each of the five corpora-
tions is owned by a different member of the same family-A. W. Over-
ton, J. W. Overton, and T. L. Overton are brothers; Mrs. M. B. Over-
ton is the widow of a deceased brother; 4 and W. S. Overton is the
son of A. W., the eldest brother. The members of the -family have
gone into the retail grocery business at different times beginning before
1937, originally as individual proprietorships and later forming sep-
arate corporations. Each owns 100 percent of the stock, and is presi-
dent and active manager of his own company. However, all the cor-
porations employ the same accounting firm, and Robert Babb, an at-
torney; is secretary of each corporation. In the corporation of which
A. W. is president, his son, W. S., is vice president, and his brother, J.
W., is treasurer; also, A. W. is vice president of the corporation owned
by his son W. S. The record shows that A. W. Overton presented
"W. S. Overton, Inc.," as a college graduation gift to his son, W. S.,
and that the latter leaves its direction largely to the manager, Holli-
day, who operated the store before the gift was made, while W. S.
spends most of his time working at A. W.'s store as a salaried employee.
W. S. makes up the payroll for his own store at his desk in A. W.'s
store.
A. W. Overton is endorser of a note for a loan by which his brother,
J. W., borrowed funds from a bank to buy equipment for one of J. W.'s
two stores. A. W., as president and sole stockholder of "Overton
Enterprises, Inc.," owns the real estate and fixtures of the stores of his
brothers, T. L. and J. W., for which they pay him rent.
Each corporation owns one or two grocery stores, some of them
small cash-and-credit stores, and others large strictly cash super-
markets. All employ meatcutters, wrappers, helpers, checkers, and
clerks. Three or four employees and one or two store managers em-
ployed by Overtone corporations worked previously for a different
Overton corportion. A butcher employed by T. L. Overton worked
4 In his will, M. B . Overton left the stock of his corporation in trust for his wife and
three sons , and set up a committee consisting of his brothers , his wife, and the trustee to
give advice on the reorganization of the company. The committee , which met only twice,
approved a new board of directors composed of Mrs. M. B. Overton , president ; her sons ;
the trustee ; and Robert Babb , an attorney . For several weeks while M. B was ill and
after he died, A . W. Overton visited M B.'s stores two or three times a week to "assist"
in their operations . Mrs. Overton now actively operates the stores herself.
"OVERTON MARKETS" 617
at the M. B. Overton store for a few weeks 'after M. B.'s death, then,
returned to work for T. L. Overton.
All the corporations participate in the same group insurance and
profit-sharing plans, one or both of which plans were explained to the
Overtons and their employees at a dinner attended by all of them.
The corporations originally had separate employee insurance plans
but, a few years ago, adopted the same plan A. W. Overton had in
effect. J. W. Overton testified that "complaints" regarding the plan
are handled by a committee composed of W. S. and J. W. Overton
and two Overton employees. The profit-sharing plan is administered
by a local bank. Deposits in this plan must be withdrawn by an
employee when his employment is terminated, unless he is then
employed by another Overton corporation,, in which case he ap-
parently may leave the deposit from his original employment in the
fund.
Overton Markets, Inc., owned by A. W. Overton, operates a ware-
house and bakery in addition to its grocery store. All the corpora-'
tions buy produce, groceries, and trading stamps from this ware-
house, and baked goods from the bakery, - as well as from other
suppliers. Ninety-five percent of the business of the warehouse is
done with the Overton Markets. No cash passes from the Overton
corporations to the warehouse but, at the end of each week, A. W.
Overton forwards to each corporation warehouse supply bills in the
approximate amount each owes, and the corporation pays the ware-
house supplier directly, the warehouse deriving its profit from dis-
counts for prompt payment. All other customers of the warehouse,
including Davis and McLaurin,- pay cash. Invoices for goods pur-
chased from the warehouse bear a suggested retail price, which each
corporation may follow at its option. While the bakery is operated
in substantially the same way as the warehouse, meat buying is
handled by a salaried meat specialist named Welch who is employed
by Overton Markets, Inc., and who visits the Overton stores and
advises their meat department employees on cutting and displaying
meat. He regularly takes meat orders from the stores, and places
the orders with the packinghouses, which ship the meat directly to
the stores.
A. W. Overton, the first to operate a store, originally advertised
his own weekly special sales in the local newspapers. As other mem-
bers of the family went into business under the same name, he per-
mitted them to benefit from his newspaper advertising without cost
to them. A few years ago, however, he organized an advertising
agency, which he wholly owns, which makes up weekly advertise-
ments and sends advance copies to all Overton Markets so they can
stock and price the items to be advertised. The agency charges the
Overton Markets a percentage of the cost of the advertising based
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the weekly gross profits of each of them. All Overton Markets
participate in the advertised specials, but they are not consulted as to
the products or prices to be advertised.
Davis and McLaurin, former managers of A. W. Overton stores,
each purchased one of A. W.'s stores on July 1, 1962, after the peti-
tions herein were filed. The sales contracts provide that : (1) the
purchasers must make a "specified payment every month for the
merchandise on hand until the note therefor (which bears no interest)
is paid, and must pay a monthly rental, for 5 years, for the premises; B
(2) the purchasers receive the right to use the trade name "Overton's
Markets" on condition that they operate the business "in the manner
that other Overtons' Markets are operated, such as, the store is to be
kept clean, the goods are to be of a quality equal to other stores
trading under this name, there is to be no sale of alcoholic beverages,
and that this operation shall comply with other standards as outlined"
by A. W. Overton; (3) "the right to use the trade name of Overton's
Markets shall be subject to withdrawal at the discretion of" A. W.
Overton; (4) A. W. Overton is to furnish the purchasers with mer-
chandise at the same prices as he does to his own stores, plus a weekly
delivery charge, and to furnish "advertising on the basis of gross
sales as prorated with the gross sales of all markets operating under
this name"; 6 and (5) if the purchaser "breaches any conditions of this
agreement and it is decided that it should be terminated, he will sur-
render the premises . . . and all the merchandise therein at his cost."
The contracts were drawn up by A. W.'s lawyer, and entered into by
Davis and McLaurin without advice of counsel, and with little nego-
tiation or investigation by them because, they testified, of their con-
fidence in A. W.
Davis and McLaurin participate in "Overton Markets" advertising
on the same basis as the Overtons do. They buy a substantial amount
of their groceries and produce from A. W.'s warehouse. Unlike the
Overtons, they pay cash, but, like the Overtons, they may follow the
suggested prices at their option. They buy some of their meat through
Welch, who visited Davis' store twice in the period of about a month
and a half between the date of purchase and the time of the hearing,
and helped him set up an inventory system for the meat department.
Davis and McLaurin have retained the employees who worked in the
stores when they were owned by A. W., but their employee insurance
plans differ from those of the other Overton stores and they have no
profit-sharing plan.
It is apparent from the facts set forth above, and we find, contrary
to our dissenting colleagues, that these 7 companies operate their
R A. W. Overton owns the leases on these properties as president and sole stockholder
of "Overton Jr. Markets of South Norfolk, Inc."
9 A. W. Overton testified that Davis and MoLaurin must participate in the advertising if
they use the Overton name.
""OVERTON MARKETS" 619
10 stores as a single, integrated enterprise. The stores are owned or
controlled by members of the same family, and are represented to the
public as a single retail grocery enterprise by their use of the same trade
name, joint weekly newspaper advertising, and identical special sales.
The interdependence of the corporations is clearly demonstrated by the
fact that some of them have interlocking officers, by their identical
and transferable employee profit-sharing and insurance plans, and by
their common purchasing. Their financial and economic dependence
on the leadership of A. W. Overton is not, we believe, characteristic of
the arm's length relationship found among unintegrated companies,
and can be explained only in terms of the existing close family ties.
In addition, while Davis and McLaurin are not related to the Over-
tons, their operations are, as before the transfer, integrated with those
of the Overton corporations and substantially controlled by A. W.
Overton. This is effectuated through the terms of the sales contracts
giving them the use of the trade name; permitting them to take
part in the joint advertising and identical sales and to participate in
the common purchasing; requiring them to operate in the same manner
as the other Overton Markets; and giving A. W. Overton full authority
to determine the manner in which their stores are operated, based upon
his power to withdraw permission to use the trade name or to terminate
their contracts. Under all the circumstances, therefore, we find that
the seven companies constitute a single employer for both jurisdictional
and unit purposes? As the total gross revenues of these companies
exceed $500,000 a year, and as Overton Markets, Inc., makes purchases
directly from outside Virginia in an amount exceeding $50,000, we find
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.8
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units
(a) Scope of the units: Retail Clerks requests a unit of all full-time
and part-time employees in the grocery, produce, and dairy products
departments of the Employer's 10 retail grocery stores, excluding meat
department employees, warehouse and bakery employees, office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, store managers, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act. Meat Cutters requests a unit
4 See N L R.B v. Stowe Spinning Company, et al, 336 U.S. 226, 227; Regal Knitwear
Company v N.L R B., 324 U. S. 9, 14-16; Trade Winds Motor Hotel & Restaurant, 140
NLRB 567. Accord, T. P. Taylor & Company, Inc, et al., 118 NLRB 376, 377.
Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of all meat department employees of the 10 stores, excluding all other
employees.
There is no disagreement among the parties with regard to the
appropriateness of separate units of grocery and of meat department
employees. In conformance with Board practice in such circum-
stances, we find separate units of these categories appropriate herein.9
Furthermore, as we have found that the 7 companies constitute a
single employer and as the 10-store units requested cover all the retail
store operations of the Employer, we find, contrary to the Employer,
that units covering all 10 stores are appropriate.
Retail Clerks requests that the employees at the warehouse and
bakery owned by Overton Markets, Inc., be excluded from the unit
it seeks. Overton Markets, Inc., objects to these exclusions. As set
forth above, in the description of the Employer's operations, the
warehouse, which is known as "South Norfolk Cash and Carry,"
and the bakery are both owned by Overton Markets, Inc., which also
owns 1 of the 10 stores involved herein. Ninety-five percent of the
warehouse business is done with 10 "Overton Markets." All of its
sales are considered sales by the Overton Markets, Inc., store, which
is located five blocks from the warehouse. The warehouse employs
a grocery manager assisted by five employees, a produce buyer assisted
by one employee, and the meat buyer, Welch, who has an office in the
store. Two of the warehouse employees also serve as truckdrivers,
delivering supplies to the stores of Davis and McLaurin and, ap-
parently, to the Overton Markets, Inc., store. The grocery and
produce managers hire and discharge, and maintain the working
schedules of their employees, but their payroll accounting records are
kept in the office of the store.
The bakery, located one-half block from the store, bakes pastry
specialty items, which it sells at retail over the counter and to all
10 "Overton Markets." There is a bakery manager, who hires and
discharges bakery employees, and a night manager who directs their
work. All Overton Markets, Inc., employees, including those -of the
grocery store, warehouse, and bakery, have the same holiday and
vacation benefits. Under all the circumstances, particularly the fact
that the warehouse and bakery are operated as an adjunct of the
Overton Markets, Inc., store, the similarity of employee benefits, the
deliveries made by warehouse employees to stores in the units, the
retail selling done by the bakery employees, and the fact that no
union is seeking to represent the warehouse or bakery employees
separately, we find that the warehouse and the bakery employees
should be included in the unit of grocery employees.10
Food Fair Stores, No., 138 NLRB 1.
10 Accord, T. P. Taylor & Company, Inc., et al., supra, at 379.
"OVERTON MARKETS" 621
(b) Composition of the units: There remains for consideration the
unit placement of certain individuals.
The parties agree, and we find, that all general managers of the
grocery stores should be excluded as supervisors. Retail Clerks would
include assistant store managers, grocery managers, and produce man-,
agers, and takes no position as to meat department managers, while
Meat Cutters 'contends that assistant store managers should be ex-
cluded as supervisors, takes no position as to grocery and produce
managers, and would include meat department managers in its unit.
Other than agreeing that general managers are supervisors, the Em-
ployer takes no position on the matter of supervisory status.
The record shows that McLaurin personally directs all operations
of the East Chester Street store and has delegated no supervisory
authority to the assistant store managers or to the meat department
manager of that store. The record also shows that the produce man-
ager of the East Indian River Road store has no employees in his
department. We therefore find that they are not supervisors and
we shall include them. All the other assistant store managers,
produce managers, grocery managers (including the assistant grocery
manager at the Poindexter Street store), and meat department man-
agers possess authority to hire, discharge, discipline, or effectively
to recommend such action, on either a full-time basis or a substantial
and regular basis as substitutes for the regular supervisors, and we
shall therefore exclude them from the respective units. The record
is not clear as to the supervisory status of the assistant manager and
the produce manager of the Afton Parkway store. We shall there-
fore make no determination as to them, but shall permit them to vote
subject to challenge.
The parties took no position as to the supervisory status of the
general manager and produce manager of the warehouse and the man-
ager^ of the bakery. As the record shows that all these have authority
to hire and discharge employees, we shall exclude them as supervisors.
Although the record shows that the night manager of the bakery di-
rects the work of employees, it fails to show whether he responsibly
directs them or exercises any other supervisory authority within the
meaning of the Act. We shall therefore permit him to vote subject
to challenge.
Welch, the meat specialist, purchases meat for all the Overton
stores, advises them as to inventory systems and meat pricing, and
instructs them on how to cut meat in order to make the most profit.
He has a desk in the Overton Markets, Inc., office, but spends part of
his time visiting the meat departments in the various Overton stores
and calling on meat suppliers. Welch, who is salaried, whereas most
of the employees are hourly paid, sets his own working hours and
works without supervision. Meat Cutters request his exclusion from
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the unit it seeks and none of the parties request his inclusion. We
find that Welch's interests are allied with those of management and
shall therefore exclude him from the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
in its stores, warehouse, and bakery in Norfolk, Virginia, and vicinity,
constitute separate appropriate units for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
(a) All full-time and regular part-time employees in the grocery,
produce, and dairy products departments of the Employer's 10 retail
grocery stores, and all employees of the warehouse and bakery, exclud-
ing meat department employees, office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, general managers, and all other supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(b) All meat department employees, including the meat department
manager at the East Chester Street store, but excluding the meat de-
partment managers at all other stores, all other supervisors as defined in
the Act, and all other employees.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM, dissenting :
We would dismiss the petitions because, in our opinion, the record
supports neither the assertion of jurisdiction nor the appropriateness
of the units sought.
On the issue of jurisdiction, it is clear that the individual proprietor-
ships, two of the seven companies here involved, do not meet the
Board's jurisdictional standards, and that the Board would not assert
jurisdiction over them unless there is a basis for combining their
revenues with the revenues of the five corporations involved herein.
Similarly, as to the appropriate unit, the Board would find separate
units of each corporation or proprietorship appropriate herein, unless
some basis exists for combining them with the other entities. That
basis, according to our colleagues, exists because these entities con-
stitute a single employer for purposes of the Act. Yet, our colleagues
have not shown the necessary degree of common ownership and control,
including control of labor relations, which the Board has, in the past,
deemed essential before separate entities may be found to be a single
employer. Indeed, the record shows that each of the companies is
separately owned, and that its stores are separately managed. There is
no common control of labor relations or of management policies. The
wages, hours, and working conditions of the employees of the various
stores are not uniform, and there is no employee interchange. More-
over, these companies have never bargained together, joined an as-
sociation for bargaining purposes, or in any other way evidenced any
intent to bargain as a combined entity.
"OVERTON MARKETS" 623
The single-employer finding, according to our colleagues, stems
from the facts that the stores are owned or controlled by members of
the same family, albeit separately, that they are represented to the
public as a single retail grocery enterprise by their use of the same
trade name, joint weekly newspaper advertising, and identical special
sales, and that they have identical and transferable employee profit-
sharing and insurance plans and common purchasing. Realistically
speaking, except for the family ties present here, the above character-
istics are typical of many trade associations in which small independent
businessmen in the grocery or other types of retail business join to-
gether, not for labor relations purposes, but for their mutual advantage
to counteract competition of industrial giants, to increase the demand
for their products or merchandise, and to expand their profits.
As to the family ties, it is true that most of these operators are
members of the same family and that they have sought to gain the
maximum advantage therefrom. But these operators have merely
found a ready substitute for the trade association in their family ties.
They have been fortunate, in this connection, in that one of them,
A. W. Overton, is willing to share with the others the fruits of his
success. Thus, he has lent them money to buy store fixtures ; he has
allowed them to purchase produce and groceries at wholesale prices
from his warehouse and baked goods from his bakery, giving them
thereby the price advantages of his large-scale purchasing; and he
has extended the advantages of his advertising agency to them. In
sum, A. W. Overton has been a benevolent older brother, helping
the others get the maximum amount of business and profits out of
their respective store operations. He has at no time injected himself
into the management of the respective stores, or into matters relating
to wages, hours, and working conditions of the employees of each
corporation, or proprietorship, all of which have always been handled
separately by each owner and operator. A. W. Overton's benevolence
is in our view no substitute for the missing common labor policy,
nor does it compensate for the lack of an established or agreed-upon
multiemployer unit.
In the recent Checker Cab case," we rejected the majority's unwar-
ranted use of the Checker Cab Association as an amalgam for joining
the independent owner-operators into a pseudo-integrated relation-
ship for purposes of asserting jurisdiction and determining the unit.
Similarly here, we reject their use of the family ties of these inde-
pendent owner-operators, and the incidents thereof, as an amalgam
for spelling out a single-employer relationship. By this decision, our
colleagues make blood ties synonymous with labor relations ties.
There is no warrant for this in our Act or in its legislative history.
n Checker Cab Company and Its Members, 141'NLRB 583.
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We would find, therefore, that the circumstances that most of these
store owners and operators are members of the same family and
operate in their family name, and have availed themselves of oppor-
tunities to reduce their costs and improve their competitive position
in such areas as advertising, purchasing, and insurance, do not con-
stitute them a single employer, nor justify forcing them to bargain
together, without their agreement or consent, and without any bar-
gaining history on such a basis. Accordingly, as these owners and
operators are no more than separate and independent small business-
men, who, because of family ties are enjoying mutual advantages un-
related to labor relations, we would find that they may not be joined
together for collective-bargaining purposes, and we would, therefore,
dismiss the petitions.
American Art Clay Company, Inc. and Henderson Gregory;
Fount Gregory ; Armond Gregory; Joe Songer ; Lonnie
Starnes; Carl Forsyth . Case No. 25-CA-1646. May 15, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 26, 1963, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent has 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 Intermediate
Report. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermedi-
ate Report and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed excep-
tions solely to the Trial Examiner's ruling at the hearing dismissing the
allegation in the complaint which alleged a violation of Section
8 (a) (3), and a supporting brief.
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 Rodgers and Leedom].
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 exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions s of the Trial Examiner.
1 We find it unnecessary to decide whether Respondent 's conduct was also violative of
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act inasmuch as the remedy necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act would be identical in either case. Latex Industries , Incorporated, 132 NLRB 1,
2 For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716, Members Rodgers and Leedom are convinced that the award of interest in this
case exceeds the Board 's remedial authority . While adhering to such view, for the pur-
poses of this decision they are acceding to the majority Board policy of granting interest
on moneys due.
142 NLRB No. 75.