Atlantic Mills Servicing Co. of Cleveland, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 1150 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cases, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair
labor practices and to effectuate policies of the Act. As there was here no evidence
suggestive of a threat to extend the picketing to other members of the Council (as
was the case in Case No. 17-CC-59, footnote 2, supra), the remedial order will
be limited to Bishop's operations. Cf. District 50, United Mine Workers et al.,
112 NLRB 348, 356.
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. Bishop, Kniffen, and Hoffman are employers within the meaning of Section
2(2) and 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Kniffen, Hoffman, and other em-
ployers to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment
to perform services with an object of forcing or requiring Kniffen and Hoffman
to cease doing business with Bishop, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with the
operations of Bishop and United Contractors Council, as set forth under section I,
supra, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and substantially affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Atlantic Mills Servicing Co. of Cleveland , Inc., and its subsidi-
aries Atlantic Mills Menswear of Cleveland , Inc., Atlantic
Mills Fashions of Cleveland , Inc., Atlantic Mills Children's
Apparel of Cleveland , Inc., Atlantic Mills Accessories of
Cleveland, Inc. and Retail Store Employees Union Local 880,
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 8-RC-3341. March 18, 1960
ORDER DENYING REQUEST
The Board on February 6, 1960, issued a Decision and Direction in
the above-entitled proceeding.' In that Decision, the Board disposed
of exceptions timely filed by the Employer to the Regional Director's
report on objections and challenged ballots, issued November 27, 1959,
with respect to the election theretofore held. The Board also noted
that no exceptions were filed by the other parties. Thereafter, the
Intervenor, Central States Joint Board, Retail and Department Store
Employees Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
filed a document with the Board requesting rescission of the Decision
and Direction and enclosing therewith exceptions to the Regional
Director's report which it alleges were mailed to the Board on Decem-
ber 11, 1959, and were timely received by the other parties and by the
Regional Director for the Eighth Region. Exceptions were due to
be filed with the Board in Washington, D.C., by the close of business
1 Unpublished
126 NLRB No. 143.
SOUTHWEST1HOTELS, INC. (GRADY MANNING HOTEL) 1151
on Monday, December 14, 1959. We are administratively advised
that the Intervenor's exceptions were in fact mailed on December 11,
1959, to the Regional Director for the Eighth Region and were re-
ceived in the office on December 14, 19591 the date such exceptions were
due in Washington. The Regional Director was not requested to, did
not, and was not under any duty to, forward these exceptions to
Washington. Section 102.69 (c) of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions provide that exceptions to Regional Director's reports be filed
timely with the Board in Washington. No exceptions were filed by
the Intervenor with the Board in Washington within the period for
timely filing which was extended at the Intervenor's request to
December 14, 1959. It is clear, therefore, that the Intervenor's
exceptions are untimely.'
Accordingly, the Intervenor's request is hereby denied and its
exceptions rejected as untimely.
' See Bold Gold of California, Incorporated, 123 NLRB 255 , footnote 2.
Southwest Hotels, Inc.' (Grady Manning Hotel ) and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters & Helpers, Local Union No. 878, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Petitioner
Southwest Hotels, Inc.' (Marion Hotel ) and Chauffeurs, Team-
sters & Helpers, Local Union No. 878, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Petitioner
Lafayette Hotel Company ' (Lafayette Hotel ) and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters & Helpers, Local Union No. 878, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 32-RC-1279,
32-RC-1326, and 32-RC-1325. March 18, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before Vivan E. Burks, hearing
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
' Lafayette Hotel Company is an Arkansas corporation , whose stock is wholly owned
by Southwest Hotels, Inc. The petition in this case named Southwest Hotels as the
Employer, and the petition and notice of hearing were served on Southwest Hotels. The
president and vice president of Southwest Hotels are also president and vice president of
Lafayette Hotel Company. Although there was no formal service on Lafayette Hotel
Company, the general manager of Lafayette Hotel appeared and testified at the hearing.
Southwest Hotels has filed a separate brief for this proceeding in which it sets forth
contentions on jurisdiction and unit placement which are based on the testimony presented
at the hearing, including that of the general manager of the Lafayette Hotel. The peti-
tion clearly designated the employees who were sought to be represented as those em-
ployed at the Lafayette Hotel. In these circumstances , we find that Lafayette Hotel
Company, through its general manager, president, and vice president had actual notice of
126 NLRB No. 141.