R. A. C. Realty Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1396 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentative of its employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
R. A. C. REALTY COMPANY AND DRAPER-OWENS COMPANY and
BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 231,
AFL
R. A. C. REALTY COMPANY AND ALLAN-GRAYSON COMPANY and
BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 231,
AFL. Cases Nos. 10-CA-1151 and 10-CA-1152. December 29,
1952
Decision and Order
On May 29, 1952, Trial Examiner Henry J. Kent issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
excepions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel
[Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
2 We agree with the Trial Examiner that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for the
Board to assert jurisdiction over the Respondent's office buildings in question in these
cases. Cormax, Ire., d/b/a Southland Building and Annex, 94 NLRB 1150. In accordance
with our jurisdictional policy, we rely upon the evidence, detailed in the Intermediate.
Report that the Respondent furnishes services to certain tenants in these buildings having
an aggregate value in excess of $50,000 per year. These tenants, considered separately,
Include (a) an instrumentality and channel of interstate and foreign commerce; ( b) firms
selling and shipping products to points outside the State of Georgia valued in excess of
$25,000 per year; (c) firms performing services outside the State of Georgia valued in:
excess of $25,000 per year. Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 92 NLRB 635.
101 NLRB No. 207.
R. A. C. REALTY COMPANY 1397
Order
Upon the entire record in these cases , and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, R. A. C. Realty Company,
Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Building Service Em-
ployees International Union, Local 231, AFL, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the following appropriate unit :
All elevator operators, janitors, janitresses or maids, employed at
the Atlanta National Building, Atlanta, Georgia, excluding watch-
men, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Building Service Em-
ployees International Union, Local 231, AFL, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the following appropriate unit :
All elevator operators, janitors, janitresses or maids, employed at
the 800 Peachtree Building, Atlanta, Georgia, excluding watchmen,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Building Service Em-
ployees International Union, Local 231, AFL, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in each of the respective above-described
units with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Atlanta National Building, Atlanta, Georgia, copies
of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Ap-
pendix A," and post at its 800 Peachtree Building, Atlanta, Georgia,
copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked
"Appendix B." 8 Copies of the said notices, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by R. A. C. Realty Company, be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof and be maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
e These notices , however, shall be, and they hereby are, amended by striking from line 4
thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in lieu
thereof the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words "A
Decision and Order" the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing
an Order."
1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
said R. A. C. Realty Company to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, Atlanta,
Georgia, in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order
what steps it has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed in Case No. 10-CA-1151 insofar as it alleges that the Respond-
ent committed independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Building Service Employees International Union, Local
231, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel by the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, on August 30, 1951, issued an order consolidating these
cases and a consolidated complaint against R. A. C. Realty Company, Draper-
Owens Company, and Allan-Grayson Company, herein called the Respondents,
alleging that the Respondents have engaged in and were engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61
Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, the order consolidating
the cases, the complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Re-
spondents and the Union.
In Case No. 10-CA-1151, the complaint in substance alleges that on or about
September 11, 1950, and thereafter, the R. A. C. Realty Company, hereinafter
called R. A. C., and the Draper-Owens Company refused to bargain with the
Union as the designated collective bargaining representative of certain employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit at the Atlanta National Building in Atlanta,
Georgia, an office building owned by R. A. C., and further alleging that in and
about August and October 1950, the Respondents offered benefits to the em-
ployees conditioned on their refusal to assist or join the Union.
In Case No. 10-CA-1152, the complaint alleges similar refusals to bargain
with the Union by R. A. C. and the Allan-Grayson Company for employees in a
similar appropriate unit at the 800 Peachtree Building in Atlanta, also owned
by R. A. C.
The respective answers filed by the various Respondents in effect contests the
Board's jurisdiction to issue complaints in each of the respective cases and
also denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on October 4, 1951, at Atlanta, Georgia,
before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Exam-
iner. The General Counsel and the Respondents were represented by counsel.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, was afforded the parties. The
General Counsel and counsel for R. A. C. presented oral argument and the
Respondent R. A. C. filed a brief.'
1 On January 4, 1952, the undersigned suffered a severe incapacitating injury of his right
arm which prevented him from engaging in constructive work for about the next 4 months,
this unduly delaying the issuance of this Report.
R. A. C. REALTY COMPANY 1399
At the opening of the hearing counsel for Draper -Owens and Allan -Grayson
moved to dismiss the allegations in the respective complaints pertaining to
these Respondents for the reason that they are not the employers of any of the
employees in either of the said office buildings. The motion was granted without
objection from the General Counsel.'
At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for R. A. C. moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the operations of R. A. C. do not affect commerce
within the meaning of the Act. Ruling was reserved pending consideration of
the entire record and is herein disposed of by the findings and conclusions made
below.
Upon the entire record in this case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
R. A. C. Realty Company is the owner of the Atlanta National Building ( involved
in Case No. 10-CA-1151) and also the owner of the 800 Peachtree Building
(involved in Case No. 10-CA-1152) both of which buildings are large commercial
office buildings in Atlanta , Georgia s As such owner , R. A. C. furnishes the usual
porter , charwomen , janitorial , and elevator services customarily furnished to
tenants of this type of building.
The Tenants in the Atlanta National Building
Case No. 10-CA-1151
R. A. C. receives a gross annual rental from tenants in this building of $152,500,
of which some $136,000 was paid by three of the principal tenants all of whom
are 'Integral divisions of concerns or Government agencies operating on a Nation-
wide or multistate basis.
Miller-Wohl Company, Inc., of New York City rents the first and second floors
of the building at an annual rent of $29 ,000, for use as a retail merchandising
store in Atlanta. During 1950, goods were purchased in the State of New York
valued at about $300,000, for shipment to the Atlanta branch. During the same
period the gross sales of the Atlanta branch, most of which are consummated in
the State of Georgia, exceeded $400,000.
The third to the eighth floors inclusive, in this building, are rented to various
agencies of the United States Government, which collectively pay a rental
of $62,350, for the space occupied by them.
The ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth floors are rented to the Standard Oil
Company of Kentucky at an annual rental of $45,000, for the use of its so-called
Atlanta division. During 1950, this division purchased and shipped goods for
resale valued at about $35,000,000, from points outside the State of Georgia
to fill orders taken by the Atlanta division. During the same period the division
sold and shipped products to points outside the State of Georgia of an approxi-
mate value in excess of $380,000.
2 The parties in substance stipulated on the record that "the R . A. C Realty Company
is the real employer of the employees" in each of the buildings involved and as such con-
trols and determines the wages and working conditions of the said employees.
8It is stipulated in the record that no manufacturing activities are carried on in either
building by the owner of the building or its tenants and that the space contained therein
is used solely for commercial office purposes or retail store operators.
1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Tenants at the 800 Peachtree Building
Case No . 10-CA-1152
R. A. C. received a gross annual rent from this building of $318,204.36 during
the year 1950 of which over one-half was received from tenants who were
integral divisions of concerns or United States Government agencies operating
on a Nation-wide or multistate basis.
The Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company rents the entire second
floor and a substantial part of the third floor for use by its accounting division
at an annual rent exceeding $84,000'
The United States Railroad Retirement Board rents a substantial portion of
the fifth floor in the building at a yearly rental in excess of $22,000.
The American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, a Massachusetts corpo-
ration, rents space for $18,000, for use as a divisional office.
Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation which maintains its home
office at Chicago, Illinois, also pays an annual rental of $18,750 for space in the
building used as a district office.
Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, a Wisconsin corporation, pays an annual
rent of over $29,000 for office space. This office wrote insurance premiums
during 1950 of a gross value in excess of $2,700,000.
Pacific Employers Insurance Company, a California corporation, paid $6,600
rent during 1950 to R. A. C. for office space and wrote premiums at this office
grossing approximately $600,000 a year in this period.
General Insurance Company of America, a Washington corporation which
maintains its home office at Seattle, Washington, paid over $14,000 rent in 1950
for space occupied by it and two other affiliated insurance companies. These
companies collectively wrote premiums for amounts in excess of $5,000, 000 during
1950, in the Atlanta office.
In addition to the above-mentioned concerns, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., a
New York corporation engaged in the manufacture of men's wear, rents space
for its Atlanta division sales office in the building at an annual rent of $7,935.
Sales in excess of $8,000,000 were consummated by this office for goods sold and
shipped to vendees at points outside the State of Georgia. Numerous other
concerns engaged in multistate business operations likewise maintain branch
offices in this building,' but I deem it unnecessary to list them for the purpose of
supporting the finding made hereinafter.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record, I conclude
and find, contrary to the contention of R. A. C., that in view of the interstate
nature, scope, and magnitude of the business operations conducted by a large
number of the tenants in each of these said office buildings, a cessation of eleva-
tor, janitorial, and charwomen cleaning services resulting from a labor dispute
would materially affect and curtail the multistate business operations of the ten-
ants thereby affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will
' The Board has previously asserted jurisdiction in a case involving this Company in
78 NLRB 814
6In the main, the findings regarding the business operations of the various tenants in
each of the said buildings are based on letters (received in evidence) sent to the General
Counsel in answer to interrogatories addressed to various tenants by the General Counsel.
It was stipulated that if representatives of the various tenants were called to testify that
their testimony would conform substantially to the information contained in the respective
letters sent to the General Counsel by the respective companies, and the letters were ad-
mitted in evidence without objection. There is a slight discrepancy in some cases between
the annual rents stated in letters from the tenants and the rents as listed in figures shown
by the Respondent but on the whole there is no substantial disagreement.
R. A. C. REALTY COMPANY 1401
effectuate the purposes of the Act for the Board to exercise jurisdiction in each
of the cases over the employer of these building service employees.'
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Building Service Employees International Union, Local 231, AFL, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Refusal to bargain
1. The respective appropriate units
The complaint in each of the two cases alleges that all elevator operators, jani-
tors, janitresses or maids, excluding watchmen, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act. The Respondent does not question the appropriateness of the glaimed
units in either of the respective cases but merely asserts that it is the function
of the Board under the Act to determine whether such units would constitute
appropriate units.
In view of the fact that the employees comprising each of the claimed appro-
priate units constitute a homogeneous group working under substantially similar
working conditions and supervision,' and that the Board has customarily found
such units to constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, I conclude and find that
each of the units described above constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining in each of the two cases involved in these consolidated
proceedings within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. The Union's majority status
a. The Atlanta National Building (Case No. 10-CA-1151)
A check of the Union's designation cards (received in evidence) against the
Respondent's September 14, 1950, payroll disclosed that there are 29 rank-and-
file employees on the payroll and that 25 of these employees signed designation
cards for the Union in August or early in September 1950, before or during the
period the Respondent refused to bargain with the Union.
A similar check of cards against the Respondent's October 19, 1950, payroll
further discloses that the turnover in employment among the group was rela-
tively small and that the Union up to this time still enjoyed a substantial majority
status.
Accordingly, I find that on September 11, 1950, and at all times material there-
after, the Union was the collective bargaining representative of the employees
in the above-found appropriate unit at the Atlanta National Building within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
b. The 800 Peachtree Building (Case No. 10-CA-1152)
A similar check of the designation cards offered by the Union (and received
in evidence) against the September 14, 1950, payroll for this building indicates
that 22 of the 30 rank-and-file employees in the above-found appropriate unit
6 See Cormax, Inc., d/b/a Southland Building and Annex, 94 NLRB 1150 ; Charlotte
Barth Howell and Van Schaack d Companv , et at., 95 NLRB 1028.
P The Respondent employs a superintendent and two additional supervisors in each of
the buildings to supervise the work of these employees.
1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for this building designated the Union to represent them before the Union's
initial request to bargain was made on September 11, 1950.
A check of the same cards against Respondent's October 19, 1950, payroll like-
wise shows that the Union continued to enjoy a substantial majority status ups
to this time."
Accordingly, I find that on September 11, 1950, and at all times material there-
after, the Union has continued to be the representative of the employees in the
above-found appropriate unit at the 800 Peachtree Building within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The respective refusals to bargain
The Respondent R. A. C. Realty Company stipulated with the General Counsel
at the hearing that it had declined to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the representative of the Respondent's employees in either of the above-found
appropriate units on or about September 11, 1950, and thereafter for the sole
asserted reason that the Respondent is not engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
Having found above that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act for the
Board to exercise jurisdiction in each of these cases, I further find that the
Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in each of the above-found appropriate units
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act and that by such
refusal has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section
8 (a) (1) thereof.
B. Other alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
W. E. Cooper, an elevator operator in the Atlanta National Building, was called
to testify by the General Counsel.
Cooper testified in substance during his direct examination that late in August
1950, J. E. Harris, the building superintendent, remarked to Cooper, "I under-
stand you all are getting a union," that after Cooper replied "Yes," Harris,
according to Cooper, asked the latter "How many [have signed up?] ; that then
Cooper, in substance, told Harris that a majority had signed up and that the
Union had already submitted a proposed contract to the Respondent, whereupon
Harris, according to Cooper, asked the latter, in substance, if he, Cooper, would
not prefer to work on his present schedule of 53 hours a week rather than
on a union schedule of 40 hours, and that Harris then told Cooper that the
Respondent was contemplating hiring colored women to run the elevators.
Cooper further testified that on a later occasion, shortly before the strike started
in October 1950,° Harris asked Cooper, in substance, "how are the employees
getting along with the union," whereupon after Cooper replied "fine," Harris
remarked, "I don't think it is going to do you any good. It looks like the fellows
° The parties stipulated in substance that in each of the cases if each employee who had
signed a card was called to testify, the respective testimony of each of them would indicate
that he had signed the card on the date appearing thereon. The cards were thereafter
received in evidence without objection.
° Other than further testimony given by Cooper during his cross -examination that he
was reinstated after the October strike there is no evidence concerning the strike in the
record. In view of the fact that no allegations regarding discrimination based on union
activities are included in the complaint , a fair inference arises that all of the strikers
who desired to return to work were rehired after the October strike was settled.
R. A. C. REALTY COMPANY 1403
would rather work the hours they are now getting [for the present take-home
pay] rather than let the union cut [the working time to 40 hours a week]."
Cooper's above testimony was not substantially upset during his cross-examina-
tion, but he admitted that he had been discharged by the Respondent one morn-
ing in July 1950, after he had been drinking intoxicating liquor the night before 10
The record further shows Cooper had been dissatisfied because, according to
Cooper, he was only paid 55 cents an hour during the summer of 1950 whereas
the other elevator operators who were not more competent were paid 65 cents
an hour during the same period.
Superintendent Harris, when called to testify by the Respondent, in sub-
stance denied that he had ever interrogated Cooper or other employees regard-
ing union activities. When asked a specific question by Respondent's counsel
regarding whether he, Harris, had asked Cooper how many of the employees had
joined the Union, Harris replied, "I would not say that I did not do so," but
further asserted that he could not remember ever asking Cooper or any other
employee about matters concerning the Union. Harris further testified that in
August Cooper asked Harris for a wage increase following which request he,
Harris, went to "Davis," a superior, and asked the latter if an increase could
be put through for Cooper, that on this occasion Davis said it could not be
done because the employees were presently organizing, that this statement from
Davis regarding union organization was the first information Cooper had re-
ceived regarding the union activities, and that his only conversation with Cooper
in August concerned Cooper's request for an increase and was prior to Harris'
above conversation with Davis. During his cross-examination, Harris admitted
holding numerous conversations with various employees, but asserted that except
for one with a minor supervisor whom he told "I don't care how many unions
you join. All I want is the work done," he had never discussed union activi-
ties with any of the other employees. He further testified during his cross-
examination that he has no recollection of ever discussing the Union in conver-
sation with Cooper, but could not categorically deny having done so.
Insofar as the record shows, no other evidence was adduced by the General
Counsel tending to show other conduct amounting to independent interference,
restraint, or coercion by the Respondent. Harris impressed me as a reliable
witness who was meticulously endeavoring to tell the truth whereas Cooper
impressed me as a person inclined to base his testimony upon conclusions rather
than matters of fact and a person liable to exaggerate and make overstate-
ments. In view of the fact that no pattern of antiunion antipathy on the part
of the Respondent was developed in this record, and that the refusal to bargain
found above is plainly based upon the Respondent's desire to litigate the issue
of jurisdiction, I deem it would not effectuate the purposes of the Act to find
that the Respondent was also independently interfering with the rights of em-
ployees to freely organize especially when such a finding must be based on the
isolated Harris-Cooper incidents and the uncorroborated testimony of Cooper
who, in my opinion, was an unconvincing witness.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents" each, set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of each of them described in section
70 Evidently he had been rehired after this discharge because the record shows that he
was working during August, September, and October, and that he again returned to work
in October after he had gone out on strike.
n It is noted that the Respondents (the owner of two different unattached and separately
operated commercial office buildings at Atlanta, Georgia) are one and the same entity in
1404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondents have refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of their respective employees in
each of the respective appropriate units. It will, therefore, be recommended
that the Respondents bargain collectively with the Union upon request, as the
statutory representative of the employees in the respective units found to be
appropriate , and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
Since the record does not convincingly reveal that the Respondents have en-
gaged in any other unfair labor practices , and since it appears that the refusal
to bargain by the Respondents is based upon their desire to litigate the issue
of the Board's jurisdiction over their respective operations, rather than a
fundamental attitude of opposition to the objectives of the Act, it will be recom-
mended merely that the Respondents cease and desist from refusing to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive representative of their respective employees in
the respective units , found above to be appropriate , and from in any manner
interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively on their
behalf.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record,
the undersigned makes the following:
CONciusIONs OF LAW
Case No. 10-CA-1151
1. Building Service Employees International Union, Local 231, AFL, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All elevator operators, janitors, janitresses or maids employed at the
Atlanta National Building, Atlanta, Georgia, excluding watchmen, guards, pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Building Service Employees International Union, Local 231, AFL, was on
September 11, 1950, and has been at all times material thereafter, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the unit above described for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on September 11, 1950, and thereafter, to bargain collectively
with the above-named Union, as the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in the unit above described, the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (5) of the
Act.
5. By said refusal to bargain, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
each of the two cases herein involved , that likewise the same Union is involved in each
case, that the bargaining units above-found , constitute separate appropriate units although
they are comprised of the same categories of employees , but embrace separate and distinct
groups of employees , and that each of these groups work under different supervisors.
R. A. C. REALTY COMPANY 1405
of the Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The Respondent has not otherwise independently violated Section 8 (a)
( 1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
Case No . 10-CA-1152
1. Building Service Employees International Union, Local 231, AFL, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All elevator operators, janitors, janitresses or maids, employed at the
800 Peachtree Building, Atlanta, Georgia, excluding watchmen, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
3. Building Service Employees International Union, Local 231, AFL, was on
September 11, 1950, and has been at all times material thereafter, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the unit above described for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on September 11, 1950, and thereafter, to bargain collectively
with the above-named Union, as the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the unit above described, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By said refusal to bargain, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with BUILDING SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 231, AFL, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with
respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , or other conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All our elevator operators , janitors , janitresses or maids , employed
at our Atlanta National Building, Atlanta, Georgia, excluding watchmen,
guards , professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT In any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
union to bargain with us, or refuse to bargain collectively with said union
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit set
forth above.
R. A. C. REALTY COMPANY,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with BUILDING SERVICE EM-
PLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 231, AFL, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All our elevator operators, janitors, janitresses or maids, employed
at our 800 Peachtree Building, Atlanta, Georgia, excluding watchmen,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
union to bargain with us, or refuse to bargain collectively with said union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit set
forth above.
R. A. C. REALTY COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
CATHEY LUMBER COMPANY and LOCAL 422, INTERNATIONAL WOOD-
WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO . Case No. 15-CA-343. December 29,
1952
Decision and Order
On April 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
101 NLRB No. 220.