Stockton Door Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 1053 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

STOCKTON DOOR CO., INC.
Stockton Door Co ., Inc. and Delta-Yosemite District
Council of Carpenters , United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO
General Teamsters Local No. 439, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America and Delta-Yo-
semite District Council of Carpenters , United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO. Cases 20-CA-9259,20-CA-9533, and
20-CB-3274
June 30, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On March 5, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Martin S. Bennett issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
Charging Party adopted the exceptions and brief of
the General Counsel.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, fmdings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to
the extent consistent herewith.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party in
their exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision contend that Stockton Door Company
violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act by
withdrawing recognition from the Delta-Yosemite
District Council of Carpenters and by repudiating
the collective-bargaining agreement; thereafter re-
ducing wages and stopping payments to the Union's
trust fund, recognizing General Teamsters Local No.
439 as the representative of the employees in the unit
represented by the Carpenters, and entering into and
maintaining an agreement with the Teamsters requir-
ing employees in the unit to become members of the
Teamsters. They further contend that General
Teamsters Local No. 439 violated Section 8(b)(2) and
(1)(A) of the Act by accepting recognition and
entering into and maintaining an agreement requir-
ing the employees in the unit to become members of
the Teamsters. The Administrative Law Judge found
violations only in Stockton's payment, and the
Teamsters acceptance, of initiation fees for employ-
ees in the unit.
1053
Until March 1973, Valley Millwork and Supply
Company was an independent corporation manufac-
turing prehung doors at Salida, California. The
prehung doors were retailed to contractors and
individual customers. In March 1973, Valley was
acquired by Stockton Door Company, Stockton,
California, previously Valley's largest supplier of
blank doors.
All the stock of Stockton Door Company is owned
by Stockton's president, Guy, and his wife, who is
also secretary-treasurer of the corporation. Along
with Stockton's vice president, they also are its board
of directors. Following the takeover of Valley,
Stockton's officers and directors assumed the same
positions with Valley.
Valley's business remained the same after the
takeover, although Stockton, primarily a manufac-
turer and wholesaler of blank doors, became the sole
supplier of doors. The same employees performed
the same jobs on the same machines under the same
immediate supervision. Cecil Simpson, former presi-
dent of Valley, and Patterson, former vice president,
respectively became manager and shop superinten-
dent. However, Stockton employees were occasional-
ly detailed to Valley to work on the building and to
do some production work.
Stockton closed the Valley plant March 15, 1974,
allegedly because the financial difficulties that had
led to Stockton's takeover of Valley could not be
resolved. On March 21, Guy, as president of
Stockton, notified the Carpenters that Valley had
gone out of business and that "as we are no longer
operating Valley Millwork Inc., there is no reason to
renegotiate a new contract." The contract then in
effect ran until June 30, 1974.
On March 25, 1974, -the Valley plant was reopened
as part of Stockton Door Company. William Patter-
son, former vice president of Valley and later, under
Stockton, the shop superintendent, was hired as shop
superintendent or foreman. Patterson, in turn, hired
Tuggle and Tramel, former Valley employees, as the
initial production force, although at lower wages. In
September 1974, Darneille, the manager of Valley
from November 1973 until it closed, was rehired to
manage the Salida plant and to coordinate all
purchases.
Using the same machines, in the same location, the
former Valley employees performed essentially the
same work as they had for Valley. However, the
doors were no longer retailed prehung but were
wholesaled as knocked-down units in boxes. ' The
difference, according to Guy, is that the jambs are
not nailed together in knocked-down units. At least
some knocked-down and boxed doors were sold by
Valley before March 15, 1974.
218 NLRB No. 156
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In late April 1974, Stockton Door recognized
General Teamsters Local No. 439 as the representa-
tive of its employees at Salida and applied its
agreement with the Teamsters , including a union-
security clause, to the Salida facility. The Adminis-
trative Law Judge found, and we agree, that both
Stockton and the Teamsters violated the Act by the
Company's payment of initiation fees to the Team-
sters . We do not, however, agree that the Respon-
dents did not otherwise violate the Act.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Valley
was closed for legitimate economic reasons and that
Stockton originally intended to move Valley's equip-
ment to another plant in Stockton. However, after
closing the plant and beginning the move, the
Company determined that it would be better to use
the Salida facility as another integral Stockton Door
plant. _
When the Salida plant was reopened it was not, in
the Administrative Law Judge's opinion, as a
continuation of Valley Millwork, but as part of the
much larger Stockton Door wholesale entity and was
an accretion to the existing unit. In his view that
conclusion was supported by the change in merchan-
dising from retail to wholesale and the fact that sales
to Valley's customers were not continued. The
Administrative Law Judge based his conclusion that
the Salida facility was integrated into Stockton Door
after it reopened on the detail of employees from
Stockton to work at Salida; the fact that Darneille,
the manager at Salida, coordinated all of Stockton
Door's material purchases; and the fact that there
was a centralized labor relations policy. In sum, he
found that for legitimate economic reasons the
identity of Valley had been erased and its former
facility merged into Stockton Door.
In our view, however, in all but name the
integration and merger of Valley and Stockton
occurred long before the Salida facility reopened
under the Stockton name, and there was no meaning-
ful change in the operation of the plant after the
Valley identification was abandoned. That Stockton
operates as a wholesaler is a detail in the mode of
distribution that has had little or no effect on the
work of the employees in the production and
maintenance unit . Employees no longer nail jambs
together, but that can hardly be considered material.
These changes do not warrant withdrawal of recogni-
tion from the incumbent collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
After its takeover of Valley Millwork, Stockton
Door went from being the major to being the only
supplier of blank doors to Valley, and Stockton
employees were detailed temporarily to the Valley
plant when it was thought expedient. The officers
and directors of the two Companies were identical
and Stockton and Valley President Guy controlled
the labor relations of both firms. Guy took an active
part in the day-to-day management, on occasion
directing, disciplining, hiring, and firing Valley
employees. Valley was a wholly owned subordinate
instrumentality of Stockton Door, whose activities as
Guy specifically testified, were directed by Stockton.
Thus, all the factors necessary to establish that two
employers are actually one were satisfied: interrela-
tion of operations, centralized control of labor
relations, common management, and common own-
ership or financial control. Sakrete of Northern
California, Inc., 137 NLRB 1220 (1962).
As the alter ego or continuation of its predecessor,
Stockton Door stands in its predecessor's shoes and
has the same bargaining obligation to the representa-
tive of its employees. Its predecessor, however, was
not the business entity which recognized the Carpen-
ters and entered into a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with that Union. Rather it was that corporation
under the Stockton Door ownership. Therefore, it is
necessary to determine the obligations incurred by
the new ownership.
When Stockton acquired Valley in March 1973 and
continued to operate it without change in the same
industry, with the same employees, it became
Valley's successor. N.L.R.B. v. Burns International
Security Services, Inc., 406 U.S. 272 (1972). As
Valley's successor, it was required to recognize and
bargain with the incumbent collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the production
and maintenance unit; a unit which is presumptively
appropriate. It is not significant in this context that
the incumbent Union had never been certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the unit. Eklund's Sweden House Inn, Inc., 203
NLRB 413 (1973).
Following the change of ownership, the terms of
Valley's contract with the Carpenters were adhered
to by Stockton. Patterson advised the Carpenters
after the takeover that there would be no changes
and that Stockton would abide by the contract. At
least until December 1973, Valley continued to make
payments to the Carpenters trust funds. Guy handled
grievances under the contract and his letter to the
Carpenters announcing that it would be unnecessary
to negotiate a new contract because Valley had gone
out of business implies that the contract had been
adopted by the new ownership. Darneille, Valley's
manager from November 1973 until the plant was
closed, testified it was under the Carpenters.
Stockton Door, as the new owner, was not required
to assume its predecessor 's contract ; nonetheless, it
did assume the contract, considered it binding, so
advised the Carpenters, and gave the contract full
force and effect until March 15, 1974, when Valley
STOCKTON DOOR CO., INC. 1055
closed. Once Stockton by its actions assumed the
contract , it was bound by it thereafter. Eklund's
Sweden House Inn, supra.
It is clear that Valley and Stockton were a single-
integrated employer and alter egos before the plant
closed and reopened. Stockton operated Valley
Millwork as a successor and assumed the existing
collective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters
Union. The single-plant production and maintenance
unit is presumptively appropriate, and it is not
contended otherwise. Not only does the record
affirmatively demonstrate that all members of the
unit on March 15, 1974, when Valley closed, were
members of the Carpenters, but it also shows that the
Carpenters contract remained in effect until June 30,
1974, and therefore its majority may be presumed to
have continued at all material times. Thus, Stockton
Door was obligated to recognize and bargain with
the Carpenters Union at all material times.
The Delta-Yosemite District Council of Carpenters
was the lawful collective-bargaining representative
when the Salida plant was reopened as a continua-
tion of the same employer and Stockton Door was
bound by the contract it had assumed. It follows that
Stockton Door violated Section 8(a)(5) by unilateral-
ly reducing wages, stopping payments to the Carpen-
ters trust funds, withdrawing recognition from the
Carpenters, and repudiating their collective-bargain-
ing agreement. Similarly, Stockton Door violated
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, not only as found by the
Administrative Law Judge, but also by recognizing
General Teamsters Local No. 439 at the Salida plant,
entering into a contract with that Union, and
enforcing a union-security clause requiring member-
ship in that Union. Rushton & Mercier Woodworking
Co. Inc., and Rand & Co., Inc., 203 NLRB 123 (1973).
Indeed, under our Midwest Piping doctrine Stock-
ton's conduct would have violated Section 8(a)(2)
even were we to have found that Stockton Door and
Valley Millwork were not alter egos. Midwest Piping
and Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060 (1945). Stock-
ton's agreement to the union-security clause, and its
maintenance, also violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
By accepting recognition and entering into and
maintaining a contract containing a union-security
clause when it did not represent a majority of the
employees, General Teamsters Local No. 439 violat-
ed Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Delete the Administrative Law Judge's Conclu-
sions of Law 4 through 6 and add the following:
"4. All production and maintenance employees
employed by the Employer at the former Valley
Millwork and Supply Company facility, Salida,
California, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
"5. At all relevant times the Delta-Yosemite
District Council of Carpenters has been the repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
"6. By unilaterally reducing wages, stopping
payments to the Carpenters trust fund, withdrawing
recognition from the Carpenters, and repudiating the
collective-bargaining agreement, the Respondent
Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
"7. By recognizing General Teamsters Local No.
439 as the collective-bargaining representative of its
employees at Salida, entering into and maintaining
an agreement requiring employees to become mem-
bers of the Teamsters when the Teamsters did not
represent a majority of the employees in the
appropriate unit, the Respondent Employer violated
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
"8. By entering into and maintaining an agree-
ment with General Teamsters Local No. 439 requir-
ing membership in the Teamsters as a condition of
employment when the Teamsters did not represent a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, the
Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
"9. By accepting the payment of initiation fees
from an employer, General Teamsters Local No. 439
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and violated
Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act by accepting
recognition from the Respondent Employer and by
entering into and maintaining an agreement requir-
ing membership in the Teamsters as a condition of
employment when it did not represent a majority of
employees in the appropriate unit.
"10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
"11. The Respondents have not otherwise en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the Act."
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged
in certain unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3) and (5), and 8(b)(2) and
(1)(A) of the Act, we shall order them to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Respondent Employer's violations of Section
8(a)(2) and (3) of the Act require an order that it
withdraw and withhold recognition from General
Teamsters Local No. 439 as representative of its
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in the unit found appropriate unless and
until such time as Local No. 439 is certified by the
National Labor Relations Board, and cease giving
effect-to the agreement entered into with that Union.
Similarly the Respondent Union's violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) require an order that it
cease applying the collective bargaining agreement
to the employees in the unit found appropriate herein
at the Salida plant, accepting recognition as the
representative of the employees in that unit, or
entering into and maintaining an agreement with the
Respondent Employer, requiring membership in the
Teamsters, or the payment of initiation fees, dues, or
other moneys, by the employees in the said unit, until
and unless it is certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in that unit. Further, the
Respondents will be ordered, jointly and severally, to
reimburse any current or former employees, for any
initiation, fees, dues, or other moneys, paid by said
employees to the Respondent Union as result of the
aforesaid unfair labor practices, with interest at 6
percent per annum.
The Respondent Employer's violations of Section
8(a)(5) require an order that it recognize and bargain
with Delta-Yosemite District Council of Carpenters
and, if an understanding is reached, embody it in a
signed agreement ; cease making unilateral changes
in wages , hours, or other terms and conditions of
employment; and make the employees whole for any
loss of wages, vacation pay, or, other benefits arising
from its agreement with the Carpenters, as a result of
its unilateral actions in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act. The Respondent Employer will also be
ordered to make payments to the Carpenters trust
funds for the period after the Salida plant was
reopened. Payments to the employees shall be made
in accordance•with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962), and F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 (1950).
Since the violations denying the employees the
right to select their own collective-bargaining repre-
sentative go to the heart of the Act, we shall issue a
broad rather than a narrow order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations -Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that:
A. Respondent Stockton Door Co., Inc., Stock-
ton, California, its officers, agents , successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Contributing; assistance or support to General
Teamsters Local, No. 439, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, or any other labor organization.
(b) Requiring membership in, or the payment of
initiation fees, dues, or other money to, Local 439, or
any other labor organization, except as permitted in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) Withholding recognition from Delta-Yosemite
District Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit found appropriate herein at
its Salida plant; refusing to bargain with that Union
as the representative of the employees in that unit;
and making unilateral changes in wages, hours, or
other terms and conditions of employment.
(d) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: -
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from
General Teamsters Local No. - 439, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, as the representative of,
and cease applying its collective-bargaining agree-
ment with that Union to,, the employees in the unit
found appropriate herein at its Salida plant unless
and until Local 439 is certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as the representative of the
employees in that unit.
(b) Jointly and severally'with Local 439 reimburse
its current and former employees for any initiation
fees, dues, or other money, they may have paid to
General Teamsters Local No. 439, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, as a result of the unfair
labor practices found herein, with interest at the rate
of 6 percent per annum.
(c) Make its employees whole for any loss of wages,
vacation pay, or other benefits incurred as result of
its unfair labor practices in the manner set forth in
the section herein entitled "Remedy."
(d) Make payments to the Delta-Yosemite District
Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, trust
funds for the period after the Salida plant was
reopened.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay, or other money due, under, the terms of this
Order.
(f) Upon request, recognize and bargain with
Delta-Yosemite District Council of Carpenters,
STOCKTON DOOR CO., INC. 1057
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all production and
maintenance employees employed by the Respon-
dent Employer at the former Valley Millwork and
Supply Company facility, Salida, California, respect-
ing rates of pay, wages, hours, or other terms and
conditions of employment and, if an understanding
is reached, embody it, upon request, in a signed
agreement.
(g) Post at its plant in Salida, California, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix A."' Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by
the Respondent Employer's authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted immediately by it upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
placed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent Employer to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent Employer has taken to
comply herewith.
B. Respondent General Teamsters Local No. 439,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Accepting assistance or support from Stockton
Door Company, Inc., or any other employer.
(b) Applying its agreement with Stockton Door
Company, Inc., to that Employer's production and
maintenance employees at the former Valley Mill-
work and Supply Company facility, Salida, Califor-
nia, unless and until it is certified as the representa-
tive of those employees by the National Labor
Relations Board.
(c) Requiring membership in the Teamsters as a
condition of employment, or the payment of initia-
tiorl• fees, dues, or other money, except as permitted
by Section 8(b)(2) and the proviso to Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
(d) In any manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with the Respondent
Employer reimburse current and former employees
of the Respondent Employer for any initiation fees,
dues, or other money they paid to the Respondent
Union as a result of the unfair labor practices found
herein, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all membership, financial, or other records necessary
or appropriate to analyze the amounts due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Post at the Respondent Union's business offices
and meeting hall copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B."2 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
20, after being duly sighed by the Respondent
Union's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent Union immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days of the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply
herewith.
1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
2 See fn. 1, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL Not assist or support General
Teamsters Local No. 439, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
WE WILL NOT require membership in, or the
payment of initiation fees, dues, or other money
to, Local 439, or any other labor organization,
except as permitted in Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withhold recognition from the
Delta-Yosemite District Council of Carpenters,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our production and
maintenance employees employed at our Salida,
California, plant; refuse to bargain with the
Carpenters Union as representative of that unit;
or make unilateral changes in wages, hours, or
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other terms and conditions of employment of the
employees in that unit.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition
from General Teamsters Local No. 439, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as the
representative of our production and mainte-
nance employees at our Salida, California, plant
and WE WILL NOT apply our collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 439 to those employees
unless and until Local 439 is certified as their
representative by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Local 439,
reimburse our current and former employees at
the Salida, California, plant for any initiation
fees, dues, or other money they may have paid to
Local 439 as a result of the unfair labor practices
we have been found to have committed, with
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL make our employees in the pro-
duction and maintenance unit at our Salida,
California, plant whole for any loss of wages,
vacation pay, or other benefits, incurred as a
result of the unfair, labor practices we have been
found to have committed herein, with interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL make payments to the Delta-Yosem-
ite District Council of Carpenters, United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, trust funds for the period after we
reopened our Salida, California, plant.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain
with the Delta-Yosemite District Council of
Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all our
production and maintenance employees em-
ployed at our Salida, California, plant, respecting
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody it, upon request, in a signed agreement.
STOCKTON DOOR CO.,
INC.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT accept assistance or support from
Stockton Door Co., Inc., or any other employer.
WE WILL NOT apply our agreement with
Stockton Door Co., Inc., to that Employer's
production and maintenance employees at its
Salida, California, plant unless and until we are
certified as their representative by the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT require membership in the
Teamsters as a condition of employment, or the
payment of initiation fees, dues, or other money,
except as permitted by Section 8(b)(2) and the
proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Stockton
Door Co., Inc., reimburse current and former
employees of that Employer for any initiation,
fees, dues, or other money, paid to us as a result'
of the unfair labor practices we have been found
to have committed, with interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS
LOCAL No. 439,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS
OF AMERICA
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARTIN S. BENNETT , Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard at Stockton, California, on November 21
and 22, 1974. The original complaint, issued August 16
against Stockton Door Co., Inc., herein Stockton, was
based upon charges filed June 6 and July 5, 1974, by Delta-
Yosemite District Council of Carpenters, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
STOCKTON DOOR CO., INC. 1059
herein Carpenters. An amended complaint involving the
same parties was issued on October 23, 1974.
A consolidated complaint against Stockton and General
Teamsters Local No. 439, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, herein Teamsters, based upon charges filed by
Carpenters on September 5, issued on October 23, 1974. In
essence, the complaints encompass alleged violations of
Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) on the part of Stockton and
Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) on the part of Teamsters. Briefs
have been submitted by the General Counsel and Respon-
dent Stockton.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Stockton is a California corporation which maintains its
main office and facilities at Stockton, California, plus a
facility in Salida, California, some 22 miles distant,
according to the map, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of doors. Stockton annually sells and ships
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers
located outside the State of California. I find that the
operations of Respondent Stockton affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Carpenters and Teamsters are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The primary issue herein is whether Stockton is guilty of
a refusal to bargain with Carpenters at its Salida facility.
Stockton was incorporated in June of 1967 and manufac-
tures flush doors at two locations in Stockton. Almost all of
its products are shipped out of state to wholesale jobbers. It
has never sold directly to contractors or individuals,
identified herein as the retail trade. At the time material
herein, it also had- vacant space in a third facility in
downtown Stockton, treated below, where it anticipated
expanding its manufacturing operation; this is identified
herein as the former International Harvester plant.
Valley Millwork and Supply Company, herein Valley,
incorporated in January of 1972, and later acquired by
Stockton, was engaged at Salida in the prehanging of
doors: it purchased the greater part of its doors from
Stockton, prehung same, and sold them to retail contrac-
tors or individuals. Stockton and Valley did not, and have
not ever, sold to the same customers , or rather, to the same
market.'
President Andy Guy of Stockton testified, and I fmd,
that Valley, then otherwise owned, was in financial
difficulties in 1973 with a number of creditors, including
Stockton, its largest . A creditors' meeting was called by
Cecil Simpson, the founder of Valley. As Guy uncontro-
vertedly testified, and I so find, it was agreed that Stockton
would purchase all the stock of Valley for $300. The record
reflects that all creditors, save one, agreed to a settlement
of 25 cents on the dollar for monies owed them by Valley,
to be paid by Stockton, and this was duly done. Stockton
and Valley, in essence, had the same officials for the year
between March of 1973 and 1974.
Stockton continued to operate Valley in unchanged
manner until March of 1974. In an effort to improve
Valley's deteriorated financial condition, Guy hired one
Lorrin Darneille to manage Valley as of November 1973.
In February of 1974, Darneille reported to Guy that the
business simply could not be operated in a profitable
manner and recommended shutting it down; he left
Valley's employ about March 1, 1974. The previous owner,
Cecil Simpson of Valley, but then a manager, gave a
similar opinion. By letter of March 13, accountants for
Valley in essence confirmed the sorry financial condition
of Valley and it was shut down on March 15, 1974.
At this point, it is in order to set forth the labor relations
picture at these entities which basically led to the instant
dispute. Teamsters has been certified as the bargaining
representative of Stockton's employees at Stockton since
April of 1969. The most recent contract runs from May 31,
1972, through May 30, 1975, and from year to year
thereafter, absent timely notice of revision or termination,
and contains a union-shop clause. It also provides that the
contract is to apply to all plants opened in the future.
Valley, on the other hand, has had a contract with
Carpenters, executed December 2, 1971, covering its
production and maintenance employees and expiring June
30, 1974, but renewable yearly, absent timely notice.
After Valley shut down on March 15, 1974, Guy wrote to
Carpenters, advised it that Valley had gone out of business
and that there was therefore no need to negotiate a new
contract covering that operation. Clinton Hoellworth,
executive secretary of Carpenters, spoke with Guy a few
days later and Guy confirmed this, stating further that the
employees at Valley had been terminated. On April 1,
Carpenters wrote to Guy at Stockton and contended that
the contract was still in existence. The General Counsel
contends that Stockton, as an alter ego of Valley, reopened
this operation on March 25, 1974, And that there was an
obligation to bargain with Carpenters. Respondent con-
tends that Valley went out of business and now is a
dormant corporation or a corporate shell retained for tax
purposes.
Stockton, it may be noted, had approximately 60
employees in two plants in that city. After March 25, 1974,
when the Salida plant indeed was reopened, there were but
two or three employees permanently assigned to that
location with others detailed from Stockton as needed.
William Patterson, formerly vice president of Valley and
now shop foreman or superintendent- for Stockton at
Salida, testified that Stockton personnel had previously
been detailed to Salida during the 1973-74 year of
Stockton's ownership of Valley which, as noted, was
located at Salida some 22 miles from Stockton. At the
L As appears below, Stockton owned and operated Valley between
March 15, 1973, and March 15, 19741
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
most, during the past year, there were five rank-and-file
full-time personnel at the Salida facility.
In'-essence, the primary issue herein boils down to
whether Stockton, after reopening the Salida plant, became
an alter ego of Valley, as contended by the General
Counsel,2 or, as I view it, an overall new employing entity
with the Salida premises merged into the Stockton
operation and the ensuing abandonment of Valley's retail
business. In view of the factors detailed below, including
overall control of operations in every respect, it might
logically follow also that the Salida facility, with the
change in operations, was an accretion to the much larger
existing Stockton bargaining unit. In my judgment, a
preponderance of the evidence will not support the alter
ego theory of the General Counsel, for reasons stated
below.
Turning to recognition of Teamsters at Salida, Executive
Assistant Hamilton Briggs of Teamsters testified that
President Guy of Stockton called him during the last week
of March, stated that he contemplated starting an
operation at Salida, and asked if Briggs had any objections
to the use of Stockton personnel there ; Briggs voiced no
objection except to point out that if this became a
permanent operation the employees would have to transfer
to the jurisdiction of another local of Teamsters.
During the first 2 weeks of April, Guy advised Briggs
that Carpenters, had raised the jurisdictional question as to
the Salida operation. After April 15, employees at Salida
joined Teamsters pursuant to its union-security clause.
According to Guy, he agreed with the representatives of
Teamsters that the contract would apply at Salida for an
interim indefinite period not specified, this after Teamster
personnel directed his attention to the clause in the
contract with Stockton that it would apply to plants
opened in the future. In essence, Stockton honored the
Teamster contract thereafter at Salida and, at an appropri-
ate date, made payments to the Teamsters health and
welfare fund covering those employees.
B. Changes in the Salida Operation
Stockton rented a third installation in that city of some
5,000 square feet intended to be devoted to the prehanging
of doors and warehousing. According to the uncontrovert-
ed testimony of President Guy, after closing down Valley,
it was the intention of Stockton to move Valley equipment
to this installation and that equipment was partially
dismantled . Respondent then discovered that it would take
some $ 10,000 to $20,000 to rewire the facilities at this third
building; it also realized that the rent on the third building
was $475 per month, whereas the Salida facility could be
purchased with payments of approximately $350 per
month.
Respondent decided, therefore, to abandon this transfer
of equipment. Some of the equipment at this third plant
went to the other two plants in Stockton and some to
Salida, and Respondent then released this third facility.
Guy also testified that a prehung door machine, routers,
and miscellaneous machinery were sent to Salida. Plant
Superintendent Robert Pittman of Stockton testified
similarly as to the transfer of this equipment. Indeed,
Pittman personally placed a piece of equipment on a truck
destined for Salida and has since seen it in operation at
that location.
The foregoing is supported by the testimony of William
Patterson, shop superintendent of Stockton for Salida and
vice president of Valley prior to the 1973 takeover. He also
was terminated on March 15, was called by Guy about 1
week later, and was offered work at Stockton in that city,
Guy explaining that Respondent was planning on moving
some machinery to Salida. However, he was rehired to
work at Salida some 7 or 8 days after the shutdown,
because Guy concluded that the Stockton plant could not
handle the volume of work.
He duly went to Salida as its first employee, save for
Allen Simpson in the office, and devoted himself to
reassembling the machinery which had been disassembled
for the abortive move to the third plant in Stockton.
Thereafter, Stockton at Salida rehired Joe Tuggle, Dale
Tramel, and a new hire, David Simpson, who left on
August 23 to return to school. Richard Tuggle was hired as
a cleanup boy on April 30 and there were two additional
hires in May and two in June.
Lorrin Darneille, an impressive witness, testified that he
was rehired in September by Stockton to manage the
Salida operation and did so, utilizing Foreman Patterson
and basically five rank-and-file personnel, plus a part-time
cleanup man. He was told that he was to coordinate the
Salida and Stockton facilities as to purchases and he has
thereafter, from Salida, handled the purchasing of all
building materials for the Salida facility as well as the
Stockton facilities.
C. Concluding Findings as to the Alleged Unfair
Labor Practices 3
(1) Valley, insolvent, was acquired by Stockton as a
result of a composition of creditors, with Stockton being
the largest. After an effort for approximately 1 year to
operate Valley, a retail business, as contrasted with
Stockton, a wholesaler, Stockton closed down the opera-
tion on March 15, 1974. '
(2) Stockton thereafter in effect integrated the Salida
operation into its Stockton operation. This is demonstrated
by the fact that prior' retail customers of Valley were
advised to seek new sources of supply. It is also clear that
Stockton never sold to the same customers either before or
after the abandonment of the retail operation of Valley.
The foregoing is corroborated by the testimony of Cecil
Simpson, the founder of Valley, who, after the March 1973
takeover by Stockton, worked for Stockton at Salida as its
manager until March of 1974. Simpson is now engaged in a
separate business and has no interest in Stockton, but he
does purchase materials therefrom, as did Valley. In his
present business, he sells basically to former customers of
Valley. He testified that Valley, while Stockton was its
operator, did business only within a 65-mile radius of
Salida, California, unlike Stockton.
2 Who specifically contends that Stockton was not a successor . See fn 14 merely a continuation of the existing business under another name.""
of General Counsel's brief, stating that "the purported new employer was 3 Except in one narrow category described below.
STOCKTON DOOR CO., INC. 1061
(3) Robert Pittman has been plant superintendent at
Stockton for 6 years and was a forthright witness. He
testified , consistent with previous testimony, that Stockton
moved machinery to Salida, also in his jurisdiction, after
March of 1974. He agreed that the cost of wiring the third
plant in Stockton was prohibitive, that the plant was given
up, and that Stockton decided to use the suitable Salida
facility.
(4) Pittman, after March of 1974, has sent Stockton
personnel on details to Salida when the work load
demanded . He has sent people there on 3- to 4-day details
until Salida built up its personnel , and the record so shows.
The Salida facility initially had but 2 or 3 people, as
contrasted with the 60 at Stockton , although this number
has since been augmented . He withstood a rigorous cross-
examination and named personnel he had sent to Salida
during this period who are still in . the employ of Stockton.
(5) Normally, according to Patterson , separate payroll
records were and are kept at the two installations. But,
reflecting on the integration of these operations, is the
undisputed fact that a Stockton man on detail to Salida
nevertheless punched in at Stockton each morning before
going to Salida , some 22 miles distant.
(6) As is manifest, the employing entity has been
drastically changed . The retail operation has been aban-
doned and the customers thereof advised to seek other
sources of supply. In fact, Cecil Simpson , with a new
business , is now such a source . There is centralized
purchasing of products for all installations of Stockton,
indeed conducted at Salida . Albeit pursuant to demand
from Teamsters, there is one centralized labor relations
policy with interchange of personnel as required among the
installations. Simply stated, for legitimate economic rea-
sons, the identity of Valley, now but a corporate shell, has
been erased and its facility merged into a much larger
wholesale entity . That some of the former personnel in the
area were hired does not detract from the foregoing. Would
it be preferable to recruit new inexperienced help and
ignore former employees who, in a time of recession,
manifestly would desire if not urgently need work in their
own community?
The General Counsel has submitted some contrary
evidence , partially refuting the foregoing , but it does not
withstand scrutiny . Thus, Dale Tramel worked for Valley
as an apprentice mill-cabinet worker commencing in
August of 1973, was terminated by Valley 1 or 2 weeks
before the shutdown on March 15 , 1974, and was told by
Patterson that he did not know if and when the plant
would reopen. Tramel conceded however , that work had
slowed down considerably between January 15 and the
shutdown, this entirely consistent with Respondent's
contentions herein.
Tramel was recalled to work around April 1 and
Patterson then told him that his rate of pay would be $3.95
rather than $4.05 per hour, as before, and as so far as
Patterson knew, "there was no union ." His paychecks
thereafter issued from Stockton while his previous checks
came from Valley. He conceded further that, unlike his
days under Valley, Respondent Stockton was now packag-
ing more doors.
Cecil Lentz testified that , late in April , Patterson visited
him at his home and stated that he had an opening at $3
per hour and that Lentz would have to join Teamsters.
This , of course, was consistent with the claim made upon
Stockton by Teamsters . Lentz demurred , but ultimately
decided to return to work on August 19. He had received
$4.05 per hour while on the Valley payroll and received the
same wage upon his return, with his duties basically
unchanged. Lentz had not joined Teamsters as of the date
of this hearing.
Frank Jurado was a journeyman miller for Valley since
1970 and was terminated on March 15 , 1974. About 3
weeks later , he visited President Guy at Stockton and
contended that he was owed some vacation pay under the
contract between Valley and Carpenters . Guy checked into
this and honored the claim . Jurado was offered work at
Salida by Stockton in August of 1974. and returned in
September at his previous rate of pay . He too has not
joined Teamsters . As in other cases , the record reflects that
the offer of reinstatement was due to a "suggestion" by the
Regional Office of the General Counsel as shown in a letter
from Guy to Jurado.
Joe Tuggle testified that he was a prehanger for Valley at
the rate of $4.05 an hour and was terminated on March 15.
He thereafter sought work from Patterson who, some 2
weeks later, ultimately offered to employ him at $3.95 an
hour and added that there would be no union . As for the
transfer of employees between the Stockton and Salida
facilities , Tuggle testified that after his return to work on or
about March 28 , employees would be detailed thereafter to
Salida from Stockton on a part-time basis.
In this area, Tramel testified that during the period
between September 3 and 13 , 1974, while he was at Salida,
he observed two Stockton personnel at Salida, but
contended that they were laying cement and not perform-
ing production work . He conceded, however , that there
were two buildings at Salida and that he , in one, could not
observe what was being done in the other building at all
times.
And his earlierh testimony does support the position of
Respondent Stockton . He was recalled to work on or about
April 1. He conceded that Stockton personnel would come
to work at Salida "off and on" with the personnel varying.
"Normally" two Stockton men would come down if there
was an overload of work and these two would come down
"most of the time." Tramel admitted that he has seen as
many as four Stockton men working at Salida. He also
agreed that there might have been other Stockton men in
areas he could not observe . The number of help at Salida
gradually increased to 10 and thereafter assignment of
Stockton personnel to Salida became less frequent . Tramel
repeated, however , that during April and May of 1974,
Stockton personnel would be detailed . to Salida "quite a
bit."
As for the transfer of machinery , Cecil Lentz claimed
that he did not see a new prehung door machine at Salida
after his return to work . Here, I credit the specific
testimony of Pittman as to the transfer of equipment; the
latter, an impressive witness in my observation, had a
superior recollection.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of all the foregoing considerations, I fmd that,
except as found below , the evidence does not preponderate
in favor of the position of the General Counsel, and
recommend the dismissal of these allegations . See Nova
Services Company, 213 NLRB No. 14 (1974).
D. Payment of Initiation Fees
Dale Tramel and Joe Tuggle, employed at the Salida
facility, testified that on or about May 1, 1974, Shop
Superintendent William Patterson told them that they were
required to join Teamsters. They took Patterson's truck
and visited the Teamsters office in Stockton. According to
Tramel, they filled out some forms and were asked for the
$100 initiation fee. He demurred , explaining that Patterson
had told them that President Guy would pay the fee.
Tramel duly became a member of Teamsters, subject to
dues deductions , and received a notice that his initiation
fee had been paid. He and Tuggle were the only rank-and-
file employees at Salida on this date. According to Tuggle,
Patterson told the two men that they would have to join
Teamsters. Upon visiting the union hall, they signed
various forms , Tuggle thereafter paid dues to Teamsters,
and his initiation fee was paid by Guy.
Guy candidly admitted that he had paid the initiation
fees for these two men and volunteered that he had done
likewise in the case of Cecil Lentz some years ago when he
entered the employ of Stockton. He testified that an office
clerical from Teamsters telephoned him and advised that
Tramel and Tuggle lacked the initiation fee payments. Guy
offered to and did pay these as he has done on a number of
occasions over the years for others, although his operation
was much smaller at the time.
An employer may not intrude himself into the union-
security operations of a contract, except as permitted by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. It follows that, by paying the
initiation fees of employees to Teamsters, Respondent has
engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(aX2) of the Act
and has interfered with the Section 7 rights of employees
protected under Section 8(a)(1) thereof. I further fmd'that,
by accepting such initiation fees from an employer , rather
than from an employee , Teamsters has restrained or
coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights,
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Stockton Door Co., Inc. is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Delta-Yosemite District Council of Carpenters,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, and General Teamsters Local No. 439, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By paying the initiation fees of employees to a labor
organization , Respondent Employer has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and
(1) of the Act.
4. By accepting initiation fees for members from an
employer, Respondent Teamsters has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(l)(A) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent Stockton and Respondent Teamsters
have not otherwise engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices , I shall recommend that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]