Simplicity Pattern Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1283 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INC. 1283
all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement , requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discrimi-
natorily discharging or denying reinstatement to our employees, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL oFFER Matthew C. Stallings and Lewis R. Williams immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially similar positions
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges and
make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other
labor organization, except as that right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We will not discriminate in regard
to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any labor
organization.
INDUSTRIAL COTTON MILLS
(DIVISION OF J. P. STEVENS CO.)
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.
SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY , INC. and CHICAGO STEREOTYPERS'
UNION, LOCAL No. 4, INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS' AND ELECTRO-
TYPERS' UNION, AFL. Case No. 7-CA-665.-February 11, 1953
Decision and Order
On August 19, 1952, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, and recommending that the Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the charging Union
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the Respondent and
the General Counsel filed supporting briefs.
102 NLRB No. 125.
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board,, 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 briefs, and upon the entire record in the case, finds in
agreement with the Trial Examiner for reasons more fully set forth
in the Intermediate Report, that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize the
Union on and after July 26, 1951, as the bargaining representative
of the Respondent's stereotype employees. The Board adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
with the following modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner ruled the Respondent was not required to
bargain with reference to technological changes in the Respondent's
operations. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the correctness of
this ruling, in view of the Trial Examiner's finding that the
Respondent was willing to bargain on that subject with the Union.
2. The Trial Examiner concluded that it would not effectuate the
policies of the Act to order the Respondent to bargain with the
Union because of a planned reduction in the size of the unit. It
appears that, as of the date of the hearing herein, there were 3 em-
ployees in the Respondent's stereotype department, although 2 of them
had received notice of termination of their employment, effective
as of a date after the hearing. The record discloses that although
the Respondent intends to maintain the stereotype department on a
very limited basis, in the normal course of events the department may
be expected to vary in size according to the Respondent's needs. The
Board, in the past, has refused to order an employer to bargain where
bargaining could not possibly effectuate the purposes of the Act.2
However, we do not believe that such a situation exists in the case
at bar. In view of the foregoing, we shall order the Respondent,
upon request, to bargain with the Union as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the Respondent's stereotype department employees, if
and when such unit contains more than one employee.
We are administratively informed that the Union, although in
continuous compliance during this proceeding from the filing of the
charge until after the date of the hearing, has since permitted its
compliance to lapse. We shall also condition this order upon the
i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
2
As '. here an employer, after commission of the acts constituting the refusal to bargain,
was forced to discontinue operati ns because war priorities prevented the use of raw
materials necessary to manufacture Respondent 's products . Mutual Textile Corporation
of Deleu,a,e, 47 NLRB 743.
SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INC. 1285
Union's renewal of compliance with the requirements of Section
9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act s
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Simplicity
Pattern Company, Inc., Niles, Michigan, its agents, officers, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Chicago Stereotypers'
Union, Local No. 4, International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers'
Union, AFL, if and when said labor organization shall have complied,
within 30 days from the date of this Order, with Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h) of the Act, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
of the stereotype department employees at Respondent's Niles, Michi-
gan, plant, excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, provided however, that the unit contains more
than one employee.
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of the above-named
Union to bargain collectively with the Respondent.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Chicago Stereotypers'
Union, Local No. 4, International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers'
Union, AFL, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all of its
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit and embody any under-
standing reached in a signed agreement, provided, however, that the
aforesaid unit contains more than one employee, and that within
30 days from this decision the labor organization aforesaid shall have
complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
(b) Post at its plant at Niles, Michigan, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director of the Seventh Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (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) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
'Marshall and Bruce Company, 75 NLRB 90; Atlanta Metallic Casket Company, 91
NLRB 1225.
250983-vol. 102-53-82
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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, we hereby notify our employees that
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with CHICAGO
STEREOTYPERS' UNION, LOCAL No.4, INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS'
AND ELECTROTYPERS' UNION, AFL, if and when said labor organi-
zation shall have complied, within 30 days from the date of the
aforesaid Order, with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of our employees in the bargaining unit described herein, and
provided that said bargaining unit contains more than one
employee.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with CHICAGO
STEREOTYPERS' UNION, LOCAL No. 4, INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS'
AND ELECTROTYPERS' UNION, AFL, if and when said labor organi-
zation shall have complied, within 30 days from the date of this
Order, with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement, provided, however, the bargaining unit
described herein contains more than one employee. The bargain-
ing unit is:
All of our stereotype department employees excluding
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the
Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of CHICAGO STEREO-
TYPERS' UNION, LOCAL No. 4, INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS' AND
ELECTROTYPERS ' UNION, AFL, to bargain with us for the em-
ployees in the foregoing unit.
SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
By---------------------------------------
-------(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated-----------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INC . 1287
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Chicago Stereotypers' Union, Local No. 4, Inter-
national Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union, AFL, herein called the Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, respectively called
herein the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued a complaint dated February 13,
1952, against Simplicity Pattern Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the
Act. On April 1, 1952, the General Counsel issued an amended complaint.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleges
that on or about May 15, 1951, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of
its employees in an appropriate unit.
On about April 11, 1952, the Respondent filed an answer to the amended com-
plaint in which it admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the amended com-
plaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on April 17 and 18, 1952, at Niles,
Michigan, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and
the Respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by its representa-
tives. At the close of the General Counsel's case, the Respondent moved to
dismiss the amended complaint for lack of proof. The Respondent also moved
to dismiss an allegation of the amended complaint. Ruling on the motions was
reserved. The motions to dismiss are disposed of as hereinafter indicated.
The General Counsel and the Respondent have filed briefs with the Trial
Examiner. The General Counsel also has filed with the Trial Examiner a stipu-
lation for corrections of the record. The stipulation is signed by all the parties.
It is received in evidence and marked as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FA(Tr
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a New York corporation, having its principal office located in
New York, New York. Its principal manufacturing and distribution plant is
located in Niles, Michigan, where it is engaged in the manufacture of tissue dress
patterns and the printing of counter books and magazines.
During the year 1951, raw materials and equipment purchased by the Respond-
ent were valued in excess of $2,250,000, of which approximately 90 percent in
dollar value represented direct shipments to its Niles plant from points outside
the State of Michigan. During the same period Respondent's sales of finished
products were in excess of $15,000,000 in value of which approximately 90 percent
in dollar value represented direct shipments from the Respondent's Niles plant
to points outside the State of Michigan.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Chicago Stereotypers' Union, Local No. 4, International Stereotypers' and
Electrotypers' Union, AFL, is a labor organization which admits to membership
employees of the Respondent.
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. TFIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent employs approximately 1,000 persons at its Niles plant. Dur-
ing the times mentioned herein, it had collective-bargaining contracts with 6
different unions. Before 1951, the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers'
Union, herein called the International, had 3 contracts with the Respondent,
covering the hourly paid employees in Respondent's stereotype department. The
last agreement between the International and the Respondent was entered into
during 1944.
On April 23, 1950, William Surge, an employee in the Respondent's stereotype
department wrote a letter to William Deery, president of the Union, concerning
a labor dispute at the plant. Thereafter, the Union requested the International
to grant it jurisdiction over the Niles plant. After obtaining a waiver of juris-
diction from Local 159, its local in South Bend, Indiana, the International
granted jurisdiction to the Union by letter dated June 13, 1950.
On November 30, 1950, the Union wrote to the Respondent, requesting that a
date be set for a bargaining conference. Thereafter, the Union sent the Respond-
ent a proposed contract and a "power of attorney," which was signed by the three
stereotype employees at the Niles plant and authorized the Union to act as their
collective-bargaining agent. After an exchange of correspondence between the
Respondent and the Union, a meeting was held at the Respondent's plant on May
29, 1951.'
B. The negotiations
During 1951, 5 bargaining conferences were held between representatives of
the Respondent and the Union. The first was held on May 29, and the last on
October 18. William Surge, Lauren Morse, and Einor Jones, the 3 stereotypers
in the stereotype department, together with Deery, appeared as the representa-
tives of the Union. Howard Mersereau, Respondent's industrial relations man-
ager, Fred Bruno, the printing plant superintendent, and Arthur Jaeger, the
supervisor of the stereotype department, represented the Respondent.
The Union s contract proposal was discussed at the first meeting.' The Re-
spondent agreed to submit a counterproposal at the next meeting.
1 Respondent's letters to the Union, both before and after the date of the first bargaining
conference , reveal a reluctance on the Respondent 's part to enter into a formal agreement
with the Union. For example, in its letter dated May 25, 1951, the Respondent made the
following statement :
We have analyzed the position of the employees of the Stereotype Department as
well as the Company's position with respect to them. We found that through mutual
recognition of the absence of the need, contracts in force years ago had not been
renewed Furthermore, general conditions having a bearing on formal written con-
tracts and negotiations pertaining thereto have changed materially during these
years Past practices and policies as expressed in the contracts we have with larger
bargaining units suffice to govern the day-to-day and overall relationships between
employees in the Stereotype Department and the Company with no ill effects on
either.
There is at least one other group, numerically larger than yours, having good rela-
ti ns with us on the same "practice and policy" basis. We see no advantage in a
trend which might lead to agreements for three men groups. With nearly 1,000
employees it would become an extraordinary chore to administer employee relations
under such conditions.
2 The General Counsel contends that certain tentative agreements were reached at this
meeting. However, I do not believe that the evidence is sufficient to warrant such a find-
ing. In this connection Decry testified that he "assumed" that the tentative agreements
were reached.
SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INC. 1289
The Respondent submitted a counterproposal at the meeting held on June 12.
It was in the form of a letter to employee Jones, and merely set forth "the terms
and conditions of employment existing between the hourly paid employees in the
stereotype Department and the Company." The Union rejected this proposal
in its entirety. Mersereau stated that because the unit was so small the
Respondent did not want a signed contract. Deery then proposed that the
parties prepare a "memorandum of agreement" and verify it by correspondence.
Mersereau rejected this proposal, saying that it would be the same as entering
into a signed agreement.
In a letter dated July 5, 1951, the Union accused the Respondent of showing
"little desire" to enter into a contract. The Respondent replied to the Union by
letter dated July 9, stating in part as follows :
In 1944 we signed an agreement with the International Stereotypers' and
Electrotypers' Union, representing the hourly paid employees in the Stereo-
type Department of the Simplicity Pattern Co., Inc. All parties concerned
remained satisfied without a renewal, modification or clarification of this
agreement.
On occasions we advanced the pay scale and improved other conditions
of the hourly paid employees in the Stereotype Department by negotiations
with and approval and consent of the employees involved, well in keeping
with considerations extended to employees represented by other unions.
In 1947 the current National Relations Act became law. As always, we are
willing to recognize bargaining agencies and to carry on collective bargain-
ing. We like to do so in conformance with the applicable laws.
At the third bargaining conference on July 26 the Union presented a revised
proposal. Mersereau stated that the Respondent could not recognize the Union
as the bargaining agent, but that perhaps agreement could be reached if a local of
the International was established at Niles. Deery replied that a local could not
be chartered in Niles as a local had to have five or more men. Mersereau then
suggested that the International be the bargaining agent. Deery stated that
"the International was not signing any more contracts since the Taft-Hartley
Law went into effect."
At the fourth meeting on September 18, the Respondent presented its contract
proposal. The identification section of the proposal called for the agreement to
be entered into between the Respondent and "the Niles Streotypers' Local" of the
International. The Union informed the Respondent that it could not agree to
this section.
At the fifth meeting on October 18, 1951, the positions of the parties remained
unchanged. The Respondent maintained that it could not recognize the Union
because there were only three employees in the unit, but indicated that It was
possible to reach agreement if a Niles local was established. The Union insisted
that it be recognized as the collective-bargaining agent. Deery concluded the
meeting by stating that since there was an impasse on the question of representa-
tion he had no recourse but "to petition the NLRB for a decision."
In its answer to the original complaint the Respondent set forth as an affirm-
ative defense that "for some years" it had been engaged "in a program of tech-
nological development whereby other more advantageous methods have been
substituted for the stereotype process," and that the program had progressed to
the point where "in a short space of time" the Respondent would terminate the
employment of 2 of the 3 stereotypers employed and thereafter would employ only
1 stereotyper . The answer was filed on March 27, 1952. On about March 28,
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jaeger informed employees Surge and Morse that their employment would be
terminated on about April 18. By letter dated April 1, 1952, the Union protested
the impending discharges and requested the Respondent for a bargaining con-
ference on the subject. The Respondent replied to the Union by letter, dated
April 4, stating that while the Respondent considered a change from a stereotype
plate to a plastic plate process to be "solely a management responsibility and
function," it would be "glad" to meet with the Union and "discuss" its "replace-
ment plans."
On April 11 the Respondent wrote the Union the following letter:'
As we have not heard from you regarding a date and time for meeting
in response to our letter to you of April 4, 1952, we must now proceed with
our plans. Accordingly, we have given Mr. Surge and Mr. Morse notice, as
per copies enclosed, that their employment by the Company will be finally
terminated on April 25, 1952.
Please be assured that we are still willing to meet with you as set forth
in our letter of April 4, 1952, if you will suggest the time and date.
That same day the Respondent gave Surge and Morse formal notice of termi-
nation of their employment, effective on April 25.
Mersereau and Henry Herzig, Respondent's vice president, met with Decry
in Chicago on April 14. The Respondent's representatives explained to Decry
the technological improvements which had been completed and the necessity for
a reduction in force in the stereotype department.' The question of whether or
not the Respondent would recognize the Union as the representative of a single
employee was then discussed. The meeting was concluded with the understand-
ing that the parties would consult counsel as to their position on that question.
Herzig had a telephone conversation with Deery on April 15, during which he
informed Decry that the Respondent would stand on its affirmative defense.
C. Concluding findings
The amended complaint alleges that "all stereotype employees of respondent,
excluding supervisors, as defined in the Act," constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The Respondent's answer denies this
allegation.
The evidence discloses that the stereotype department is located in a separate
section of the plant, that stereotypers perform no noncraft work, that there is
no interchange with other employees, that stereotypers are under the super-
vision of a foreman whose duties are confined to their department, and that
there is a long history of collective bargaining between the International and
the Respondent with the unit limited to stereotypers. I find that all stereotype
employees of Respondent at its Niles plant, excluding supervisors, as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of the Act.
The undisputed evidence shows and I find that on and after May 15, 1951, the
Union represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
3 The Union answered the Respondent's letter of April 4 by letter dated April 11, request-
ing a meeting on April 14.
4 Mercereau testified that, "Mr. Decry stated the Union fully understood that (the
discharges) and seemed to be completely in the company power " Decry testified that at
the beginning of the meeting he stated "the union should have been notified of any
change in the department."
SIMPLICITY PATTERN COMPANY, INC. 1291
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent did not bargain in good
faith with the Union on and after May 15, 1951; and that the Respondent's
action on or about March 28, 1952, in unilaterally announcing the partial re-
placement of the stereotype plate process and the necessity of terminating two
of the employees in the bargaining unit constituted a separate refusal to bargain.
The Respondent contends, in substance, that the evidence shows that it did
bargain in good faith ; that it was not legally required to bargain with the
Union on the change from stereotype to plastic plate process or the resulting
terminations ; and that, in any event, the issues are moot since the Act does not
require an employer to bargain with a union with respect to a unit consisting
of only one employee.
The evidence discloses that the Respondent refused to recognize the Union
as the bargaining agent at the third meeting on July 26, 1951, and thereafter.
The Respondent suggested at this meeting and later that it might enter into a
contract with the International, a Niles local, or a South Bend local of the
International.' The Respondent apparently contends that recognition is a bar-
gainable issue, since in its brief it states that "the Company did not consider
that a stalemate or impasse had been reached" on the question. This con-
tention is rejected. As the designated representative of a majority of employees
in the appropriate unit, the Respondent was obligated to recognize the Union.
Recognition was not a bargainable issue.'
Accordingly, it is found that on July 26, 1951, and thereafter the Respondent
refused to bargain with the Union within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and
(1) of the Act.
The record discloses that as of April 25, 1952, the number of employees in the
unit found to be appropriate was reduced to one. The General Counsel does not
contend that the discharges were made for discriminatory reasons. Under the
circumstances, I do not believe that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to
order the Respondent to bargain with the Union, and such an order will not be
recommended.' In his brief, the General Counsel argues, ". . . as of the date
of the hearing, three stereotypers were still employed by the Respondent at Niles
and there is nothing in the record to indicate that their employment was ever
actually terminated. . . . It would be incumbent upon the Respondent to request
to open the record to show that there actually remains today one stereotype em-
ployee at Niles." I do not agree with this contention. The undisputed evidence
in the ease shows that on April 11, 1952, formal notices of termination, effective
April 25, were given to employees Surge and Morse. It is my opinion that the
burden of proof shifted to the General Counsel and that it was incumbent on him
to move to reopen the case if the scheduled terminations did not in fact take place.
The General Counsel's contention with respect to the Respondent's alleged
unilateral actions in changing from stereotype to plastic plates and in giving
the notices of termination of employment is also rejected. This was solely a
management prerogative, on which the Respondent was not required to bargain.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that no formal action had been taken by the
Respondent before the Union's letter of April 1, 1952, requesting a bargaining
conference on the matter ; that by letter dated April 4, the Respondent agreed
to meet and discuss with the Union the proposed changes, asking the Union to
name a date for the meeting; that, not having received any reply from the Union,
the Respondent waited until April 11 before giving formal notices to the em-
I There is an issue in the case as to which party suggested the South Bend local.
Testimony on behalf of the Respondent was to the effect that it suggested the South Bend
local and that such proposed recognition was rejected by the Union.
E N. L. R . B. v. Louisville Refining Company, 102 F. 2d 678 , cert . den. 308 U . S. 568.
7 N. L. R. B. v. Inter-City Advertising Co., Inc., 154 F. 2d 244.
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees ; and that the Respondent thereafter met and discussed the matter with
the Union. Aside from the question of whether or not the Respondent was
obligated to bargain on the matter, the above facts disclose that the Union was
remiss by not answering the Respondent's letter before April 11, and that the
Respondent in fact did consult with the Union before taking final action.
Accordingly, the Respondent' s motion to dismiss this allegation of the amended
complaint is granted.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent set forth 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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Chicago Stereotypers' Union, Local No. 4, International Stereotypers' and
Eleetrotypers' Union, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By refusing on July 26, 1951, and thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in an appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
3. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain the Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. 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.]
DALLAS CONCRETE COMPANY and DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS , LOCAL UNION No . 745, AFL. Case No.
16-CA-407. February 11, 1953
Decision and Order
On August 5,1952, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw 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 and
102 NLRB No. 122.