Trinity Steel Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1470 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRINITY STEEL COMPANY, INC. and SHOPMEN 'S LOCAL No. 536, INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL
IRON WORKERS , AFL. Case No. 16-CA-478. April 2, 1953
Decision and Order
On January 30, 1953, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in a certain unfair
labor practice in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the 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. Thereafter the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate, Report.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following modification :
While we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent re-
fused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and
(1) of the Act, we find that the first violation occurred upon the Res-
pondent's first postcertification refusal to bargain, when it refused
the request which the Union made on the day it received the Board's
certification of January 31, 1952, rather than on November 14, 1951,
as found by the Trial Examiner.2
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to ,Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Trinity Steel Company,
Inc., Dallas, Texas, its agents, officers, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Shopmen's Local No.
536, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all its em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
a Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson].
2 Harbor Chevrolet Company, 93 NLRB 1323.
103 NLRB No. 135.
TRINITY STEEL COMPANY, INC. 1471
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of the above-named
Union to bargain collectively with the Respondent on behalf of the
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit, and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its place of business in Dallas, Texas, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of such
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth
Region, shall, after having been duly signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized 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 at least 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
,Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
i This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner," " the words "A Decision and Order." If this Order is enforced by a
decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further amended by substituting
for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" in the caption, the words "Pursuant
to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A-charge having-been duly filedrand served ,,a complaint and notice of-hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named
Respondent Company, a hearing Involving allegations of unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 5) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , 61 Stat . 136, herein called the Act, was held in Dallas, Texas, on
January 16, 1953, before the undersigned Trial Examiner.
In substance the complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent,
since January 1952, has refused to bargain collectively with Shopmen's Local
No. 536, International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL,' herein called the Union , as the exclusive representative of its
employees in an appropriate unit , although at all times since November 13, 1951,
the Union has been the exclusive representative for such purposes , and thereby
has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by the Act.
At, the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to
be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses , to introduce evidence perti-
1 The complaint erroneously named the International before the Local . It is hereby
amended to conform to the proof , including the charge and the Board 's certification.
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed
findings and conclusions. Argument and the filing of briefs were waived.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Trinity Steel Company, Inc., is a Texas corporation having its principal office
and place of business in Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of pressure vessels and related products.
The Respondent annually purchases raw materials valued at more than
$150,000, of which more than 10 percent is shipped in interstate commerce to
its Dallas plant from points outside the State of Texas. It annually sells products
valued at more than $1,000,000, of which more than 50 percent is shipped in
interstate commerce to points outside the State of Texas.
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Shopmen 's Local No . 536, International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges, on November 2, 1951, the Board found,' and the Trial
Examiner now finds that all of the Respondent's production and maintenance
employees at its Dallas plant, including truck drivers, porters, storekeeper,
shipping and receiving clerks, but excluding office and clerical employees , sales-
men, engineer, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
A Board election was conducted on November 13, 1951, among the Respondent's
employees in the above unit. Upon conclusion of the election the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots, showing that of the 57 cast ballots, 39 were for
the Union and 18 were against it. No other union appeared upon the ballot.
Thereafter the Respondent filed objections to the conduct of the election. The
objections were overruled by the Regional Director, Sixteenth Region, and the
Respondent filed exceptions to his report. On January 31, 1952, the Board
found no merit in the exceptions, adopted the Regional Director's report, over-
ruled the objections, and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of all employees in the above-described unit.' In accordance with the
Board's certification, the Trial Examiner finds that since November 13, 1951,
the Union has been at all times the exclusive bargaining representative of said
employees.
The Respondent contends that it is under no obligation to bargain with the
Union, for the reasons set forth in its objections and exceptions already passed
upon by the Board. The Trial Examiner finds no merit in this contention.
The Respondent also contends that it has not, as a fact, refused to bargain
with the Union. A summary of pertinent events follows.
Case No. 16-RC-833, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
' 97 NLRB 1486. On February 28, 1952, the Board issued an order denying the Respond-
ent's motion for reconsideration of the cited Decision and Certification.
TRINITY STEEL COMPANY, INC. 1473
On November 14, 1951, a special representative of the Union, Cranford Cook,
and a committee of employees interviewed President C. J. Bender, of the Re-
spondent, and asked that a date be fixed for the beginning of contract negotia-
tions. Bender declined to set any date. Telephonic request was made by Cook
of Bender again on or about January 8. Bender said be would wait for Board
certification, because he did not know whether or not the Union or some other
labor organization represented his employees. On or about January 31, upon
receipt of the Board's certification, Cook again called Bender. Bender would
not set a date for meeting, telling Cook that he had not yet talked with his
attorneys and suggested the possibility of filing a motion for reconsideration
with the Board. On February 14, Cook sent Bender a letter, reviewing his past
unsuccessful efforts to meet with him for negotiations, and stating that in the
event he received no reply by February 18 charges of refusal to bargain would
be filed at the Board's Regional Office. The Respondent again ignored the re-
quest to bargain, although its counsel acknowledged receipt of the union letter
and stated that he was filing with the Board a motion for reconsideration of
the certification. As noted in a foregoing footnote, the Board denied this motion
by order of February 28.
On March 7 Cook again wrote to Bender, stating that he and a negotiating
committee would call at his office on March 12. Cook and an associate appeared
on the latter date, and were informed that Bender was not there. They were
permitted to talk with one Wallace, whose exact management position is not
revealed by the record. A copy of a proposed contract was left with Wallace.
The Respondent made no effort to set a date for negotiations, nor did it submit
any counterproposed contract.
During the latter part of April, Cook communicated with the Respondent's
counsel who took the position, in effect, that before negotiations were begun
the Board should act upon the charges filed. There is some dispute in the record
as to whether or not on this occasion, in April, counsel for the' Respondent in-
formed the union representative that he had no authority to negotiate for the
Respondent. Whether counsel first made this statement to the union representa-
tive in April, or in the following August, it was his position at the hearing that
at no time has he been authorized to act for the Respondent in collective bar-
gaining negotiations.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds, on the basis of the above-described
events, that there is no merit to the Respondent's contention that it has not
refused to bargain with the Union. It is plain , and is found, that at no time,
since November 14, 1951, when the Respondent was informed by the tally of
ballots that the Union, the only labor organization on the ballot, had won the
election, has the Respondent bargained in good faith with the Union. Indeed,
it has failed and refused even to meet, for the purpose of beginning negotiations,
with the Union.
The Trial Examiner therefore concludes and finds that since November 14,
1951, the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and that by
such refusal the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced it$
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
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 described in section I, above,
have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce
1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practice
of refusing to bargain collectively with the chosen representative of its em-
ployees. It will therefore be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and from like and related conduct. It will be further recommended that the
Respondent bargain collectively, upon request, with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case , the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Shopmen's Local No. 536, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its Dallas
plant, including truckdrivers , porters , storekeeper, shipping and receiving clerks,
but excluding office and clerical employees , salesmen , engineer , guards, watchmen,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
the Act.
3. Shopmen's Local No. 536, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, was, on November 13, 1951, and at all times
since then has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in the afore-
said unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on and after November 14, 1951, to bargain collectively with
the aforesaid Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appro-
priate unit , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the aforesaid unfair labor practice, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendation of a Trial Examiner 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 bargain collectively upon request with SHopMEN's LOCAL No.
536, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL
IRON-WOR%ERs, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described herein, with respect to grievances, labor disputes,
MCCARTHY-BERNHARDT BUICK, INC. 1475
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at our Dallas plant, in-
cluding truck drivers, porters, storekeeper, shipping and receiving
clerks, but excluding office and clerical employees, salesmen , engineer,
guars, watchmen, professional employees , and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-
named union to bargain collectively with us, or refuse to bargain with said
Union, as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining
unit set forth above.
TRINITY STEEL COMPANY, INC.,
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.
MCCARTHY-BERNHARDT BUICK, INC. and LOCAL 259, UNITED AUTO-
MOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 2-CA-1797. April 2, 1953
Decision and Order
On April 9, 1952, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his In-
termediate 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 In-
termediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) alleged in the complaint
and dismissed the 8 (a) (5) allegation at the close of the hearing.
In so doing, the Trial Examiner made no findings of fact and con-
clusions of law to support his ruling, as required by Section 102.45
of the Board's Rules and Regulations .' Therefore, on November 20,
1952, the proceeding was referred back to the Trial Examiner for the
purpose of issuing a Supplemental Intermediate Report containing
findings of fact and conclusions as the basis for his dismissal of the
i The pertinent provision of this section is as follows :
After hearing for the purpose of taking evidence upon a complaint , the trial
examiner shall prepare an intermediate report and recommended order, but the
initial decision shall be made by the Board. Such report shall contain findings of
fact , conclusions ,. and the reasons or basis therefor , upon' all material issues of fact,
law, , or discretion presented on the record, and the recEiaimended order shall contain
recommendations as to what 'disposition of-the case should be made.
103 NLRB No. 105.