Roberts Brothers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 372 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the question under comparable circumstances.' The facts of
this case, however, do not warrant a finding that the Employer
preempted the last opportunity for discussion and made im-
possible the presentation of the Petitioner ' s views under
circumstances approximating equality. We think that here
there was sufficient time between the speech and the election
for the Petitioner to request a similar opportunity to present its
views to the employees. As no request was made by the
Petitioner, we find that the Employer has not interfered with
the election of March 6, 1953.
Having sustained the Employer ' s exceptions to the finding of
the Regional Director upon which he basedhis recommendation
that the election be set aside, we find that the Petitioner's
objections do not raise substantial and material issues with
respect to the conduct of the election. Accordingly, the objec-
tions are hereby overruled , and we shall issue a certification of
results of election based on the tally of ballots.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for Printing Specialty and Paper Products Union No.
388, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of
North America, AFL, and that the said labor organization is
not the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit
heretofore found appropriate]
Chairman Farmer and Member Peterson took no part in the
consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certifi-
cation of Results of Election.
2 Hill Brothers Company, 100 NLRB 964; Foreman & Clark, Inc., 101 NLRB 40.
ROBERTS BROTHERS and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION , AFL, LOCAL 201. Case No. 36 -CA-347.
July 24, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon the charge duly filed on December 8, 1952, by Retail .
Clerks International Association, AFL, Local 201, herein called
the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the
Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region issued a complaint
dated February 26, 1953, against Roberts Brothers , herein
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent interfered
with, restrained , and coerced and is interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and
is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
106 NLRB No. 74.
ROBERTS BROTHERS 373
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act . Copies of the complaint , the charge,
and notices of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent
and the Union on or about February 26, 1953.
With respect to the unfair labor practice , the complaint
alleges , in substance , that on or about December 6, 1952, the
Respondent conducted a poll among its employees on the
question of whether the employees desired to be represented
by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Thereafter all parties entered into a stipulation which set
forth an agreed statement of facts . The stipulation provides
that the parties thereby waived their rights to a hearing and
to the taking of testimony before a Trial Examiner of the
National Labor Relations Board . The stipulation further
provides that , upon such stipulation and the record as therein
provided , the Board may make findings of fact , conclusions of
law, and may issue the Decision and Order as if the same facts
has been adduced in open hearing before a duly authorized
Trial Examiner of the Board.
The aforesaid stipulation is hereby approved and accepted
and made part of the record in this case . In accordance with
Section 102 . 45 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations , this proceeding was duly transferred to and
continued before the Board.
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation , and the entire
record in this case, the Board , having duly considered the
brief filed by the Respondent , makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Oregon corporation , having its principal
office and place of business in the city of Portland , Oregon,
and operating department stores in Portland , Salem , Corvallis,
and Eugene , Oregon . The Respondent in the 12 -month period
preceding the issuance of the complaint, in the course and
conduct of its business , has caused merchandise valued in
excess of $25 , 000 to be shipped to and through States of the
United States other than the State of Oregon.
We find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL, Local 201, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the
Act.
3 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The issue and surrounding relevant facts
The sole issue in this case, on the facts stipulated by the
parties, is whether the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act by conducting a secret poll to ascertain its em-
ployees' desires as to representation by the Union which
claims to represent a majority of such employees.
By letter dated December 3, 1952, the Union informed the
Respondent that it represented a majority of the employees
employed at the Employer's store in Eugene, Oregon.
On or about December 6, 1952, the Respondent' s store man-
ager called a meeting of all store employees, during the course
of which he addressed the employees from a prepared script
concerning the Respondent' s feelings toward union organization
and membership. The statements contained in this address did
not exceed the "free-speech" provision of Section 8 (c) of the
Act and are not alleged specifically in the complaint to consti-
tute an unfair labor practice. The statements, however, clearly
indicated the Respondent' s desire not to have the Union repre-
sent the employees. Before concluding his speech, the store
manager made the following remarks:
We are interested in determining the desires of all of you.
I shall pass out a slip of paper on which are typed two
words, "Against" and "For." If you desire the Union vote
"for." If you are against , place an "X" along side the
word "against." This is a survey to determine your
feelings and obviously it will be a secret ballot for our
information. I thank you for your kind indulgence during
this matter.
Accordingly, one of the employees passed out among the
employees present at the meeting slips of paper which con-
tained the words "For" and "Against." Each employee
indicated his desire on his slip of paper without signing his
name and placed the slip into a box. The store manager counted
the ballots after the employees had returned to work. Later in
the day he posted a bulletin in the store cafeteria announcing
that 16 employees had voted "For," 30 hadvoted "Against,"
and 1 ballot was " cast but not counted."
At the time of the balloting, there were approximately 44
regular and regular part-time nonsupervisory employees of
the Respondent working in the store. At the same time there
were approximately 23 temporary employees employed by the
Respondent in the Eugene store. It is not ascertainable to what
extent temporary employees voted in the balloting except that
there were 12 more votes cast than there were regular and
regular part-time nonsupervisory employees employed by the
Respondent at that time.
ROBERTS BROTHERS 375
B. Conclusions with respect to the employee poll
The Respondent contends that Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act was
not violated because the poll was conducted in an atmosphere
free from other Employer unfair labor practices. We find no
merit in this contention. For the reasons stated in Protein
Blenders, Inc., 105 NLRB 890, we find that the Respondent,
by conducting a private poll of its employees to determine their
union sentiment under the circumstances set forth above,
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with its 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees by polling them as to
their union desires, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act,
we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, Local 201,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By polling its employees as to their union sentiment the
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair practice is an unfair labor practice
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re-
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent , Roberts Brothers , and its officers , agents. succes-
sors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from conducting polls among its em-
ployees to determine their union sentiment or in any other
like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self - organization,
form labor organizations , to join or assist Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association, AFL, Local 201, or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its store in Eugene , Oregon , copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix."' Copies of such
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent ' s authorized representative , be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted, and maintained by it for a period of sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Chairman Farmer took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
'in the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF ROBERTS BROTHERS
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
you that:
WE WILL NOT poll our employees concerning their
desires or wishes relative to the Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association, AFL, Local 201, or any other labor
organization , or in any like or related manner interfere
MONARCH FOUNDRY COMPANY 377
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights of self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations , or to join or assist the above-named union or any
other labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, orto refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right 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.
All of our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-
named union or any other labor organization, except to the
extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in con-
formity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
ROBERTS BROTHERS,
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.
MONARCH FOUNDRY COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, AFL. Case No . 13-CA-1276. July 24, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 23, 1953, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent engaged in and was en-
gaging 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 Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and
1 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 [Members Houston, Styles, and Peter-
son].
106 NLRB No. 73.