A. K. Allen Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 568 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All packinghouse employees at the Employer's Port Norris, New
Jersey, operation, excluding bookkeepers, office clerical employees,
timekeepers, foremen other than working foremen, managers, boat
captains, crewmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
A. K. Allen Co., Inc., American Hydrolube Corp., Precision Disc
Grinding Corp. , and- Small Lot Turning , Inc. and District 15,
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No.
2-CA-4816. March 12,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 28, 1956, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent Companies had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the
Act, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Companies filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
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 the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following additions.
The Respondent Companies contend that the four-company unit
held appropriate by the Board in the earlier representation case is
inappropriate.' The Board therein found that the four Respondent
Companies constitute a single, integrated enterprise and Employer
and that the production and maintenance employees of the four com-
panies constitute a single appropriate unit. The record shows that
the only change in the Employer's operations since the Board's earlier
decision is a. change of address for Small Lot Turning, Inc., which in
early 1956 moved from its former common location with the other
three companies at 57 Meserole Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, to a
separate location at 65 Rushmore Street, Westbury, Long Island.
Upon the entire record of both the representation case and the in-
stant complaint case, we find that the change with respect to Small Lot
Turning, Inc., is insufficient to affect our earlier unit finding that the
1 Case No. 2-RC-7357, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
117 NLRB No. 89.
A. K. ALLEN CO., INC. 569
production and maintenance employees of the four Respondent Com-
panies constitute an appropriate unit and we hereby affirm such unit
finding.
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 Companies, A. K.
Allen Co., Inc., American Hydrolube Corp., Precision Disc Grinding
Corp., 57 Meserole Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, and Small Lot Turn-
ing, Inc., 65 Rushmore Street, Westbury, Long Island, New York, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with District 15, International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all production and maintenance employees at the
Brooklyn, New York, plants of A. K. Allen Co., Inc., American Hydro-
lube Corp., and Precision Disc Grinding Corp., and at the Westbury,
Long Island, New York, plant of Small Lot Turning, Inc., including
the shipping clerk, inspector, and job timekeeper, but excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, technical employees, the
designer, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, with
respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of'
employment, or other conditions of employment.
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of the above-named
union to bargain collectively with the Respondent Companies on be-
half of the employees in the 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,
described above, with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and,
if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed contract.
(b) Post at its office and places of business in Brooklyn, New York,
and Westbury, Long Island, copies of the notice attached to the Inter-
mediate Report marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent Companies' authorized repre-
sentative or representatives, be posted by the Respondent Companies
immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted, and main-
9 This notice is amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR• RELATIONS BOARD
tained by them for at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Companies to in-
sure 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 it has
taken to comply therewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, and separate but identical answers having been filed by
each of the above-named Companies, herein collectively called the Respondent, 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 New York, New York, on June 25, 27, and July
18, 1956, before the duly designated Trial Examiner.
In substance the complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent,
since on or about December 12, 1955, has refused to bargain collectively with the
above-named Charging Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, although at all times since October 20, 1955, the
Union has been the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees, and
thereby has interfered with, restrained, and coerced 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 pertinent to
the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings
and conclusions. Arguments were waived. Although counsel for the Respondent
requested, and was granted, three extensions of time to file briefs, under date of
August 20, 1956, a letter from Max Grossman informed the Trial Examiner that
Counsel Gray had "left for Europe" and "will stand on the record."
At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the Respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint, and ruling upon the motion was then reserved. It is disposed of by the
following findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
A. K. Allen Co., Inc., American Hydrolube Corp., Precision Disc Grinding Corp.,
and Small Lot Turning, Inc., each are New York corporations. In a Decision and
Direction of Election (2-RC-7357, not reported in printed volumes of Board Deci-
sions and Orders) issued on September 21, 1955, the Board found that the above-
named corporations constituted a "single, integrated enterprise and Employer."
Said employer is engaged in the business of the manufacture and distribution of
air cylinders, valves, grease fittings, and screw machine parts and the performance
of grinding services, with principal offices and place of business in Brooklyn, New
York.
Contrary to the contention of the Respondent, the Trial Examiner finds, in ac-
cordance with the Board's finding in the above-cited decision, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act. Not only does the Trial Examiner con-
sider himself bound by the Board's finding on this point, particularly since no new
evidence to the contrary was introduced by the Respondent, but the finding also
acquired additional support in commerce data introduced by General Counsel at
the hearing before this Trial Examiner. Such data is more current than that before
the Board, and covers the period of the alleged refusal to bargain. It was stipulated
at the hearing that 3 of the 4 companies involved, in the period from April 1, 1955,
to March 31, 1956, had sales outside the State of New York totalling $135,486.23.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District 15, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
A. K. ALLEN CO., INC.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
571
The complaint alleges, in the above-cited representation case the Board found,
and the Trial Examiner now finds that all production and maintenance employees
at the plants of A. K. Allen Co., Inc., American Hydrolube Corp., Precision Disc
Grinding Corp., and Small Lot Turning, Inc., including the shipping clerk, inspector
and job timekeeper, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
technical employees, the designer, watchmen, guards, 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. (Although in its answer the Respondent
denies the appropriateness of the unit, it offered no new evidence pertinent to the
issues before the Board.)
A Board election was conducted on October 20, 1955, among the employees in
the above unit. On or about October 28, 1955, as a result of the election, the Regional
Director for the Second Region certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the said unit.
The sole issue of fact before him for determination, in the opinion of the Trial
Examiner, is whether or not the Respondent, after the Union's certification, failed
and refused to bargain with it. The following findings rest upon the undisputed
testimony of a union representative and unchallenged documents in the record.
In the latter part of November or early December 1955, Union Representative
Clinton H. Brown telephoned to A. K. Allen and asked for a meeting to negotiate
a contract. Allen referred Brown to Attorney Gray. On December 12 Brown wrote
to Gray, enclosing a proposed contract, and requesting "an early mutually con-
venient date for negotiations." On December 15 Gray replied to Brown, stating in
part that Allen was then out of town, and that "until I talk to him, I am in no
position to do anything about this matter."
Gray did not communicate thereafter with Brown. During January Brown made
several unsuccessful efforts to reach Allen by telephone. On February 8 Brown
wrote to Allen, again requesting a negotiating meeting, and stating that unless a meet-
ing could be arranged before February 21, 1956, charges would be filed "with ap-
propriate Government agencies." The Respondent made no reply.
On March 8, 1956, the Union filed with the Board a charge of refusal to bargain,
which was duly served upon the Respondent. On April 16, 1956, Brown wrote to
each of the four companies comprising the Respondent, again requesting negotiations.
No reply was received. The Union's final letters were sent by registered mail, the
receipts are in evidence.
It is clear from undisputed evidence that the Respondent, since the first effort made
by the Union to negotiate, has chosen to ignore the Union and its own obligation to
bargain with it.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by such conduct the Respondent,
since on or about December 12, 1955, has refused to bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit, and thereby has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced 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 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 employees. 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. District 15, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
2. All production and maintenance employees at the Brooklyn, New York, plants
of A. K. Allen Co., Inc., American Hydrolube Corp., Precision Disc Grinding
Corp., and Small Lot Turning, Inc., including the shipping clerk, inspector, and job
timekeeper, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, technical
employees, the designer, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (h) of the Act.
3. District 15, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, was, on October
20, 1955, and at all times since then has been, the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on and after December 12, 1955, to bargain collectively with the
aforesaid Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate
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 employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 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 are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions 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 District 15, International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described herein, with respect to grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and other conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our plants, including the
shipping clerk, inspector, and job timekeeper, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, technical employees, the designer, watchmen,
guards, 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.
A. K. ALLEN CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
AMERICAN HYDROLUBE CORP.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
PRECISION DISC GRINDING CORP.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
SMALL LOT TURNING, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Repiesentative) (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.