B. H. Hadley, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 1231 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

B. H. HADLEY, INC. 1231
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
(e) If the ' Respondent 's part of the said project has not been completed , promptly
mail to the said Regional Director signed copies of the above-described notice for
posting, the project manager willing , in conspicuous places at the site of such project.
(f) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.so
It is further recommended that, unless within 20 days from the receipt of this
Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies the said Regional Director , in writing,
that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the Board issue an order
requiring the Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
so If these recommendations are adopted by tile Board, the words "10 days from the
date of this Order" shall be substituted for the words "20 days from tile receipt of this
Intermediate Report."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, you are notified that:
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Sheet Metal Workers International
Association , Local 12, AFL-CIO, or any other union , by denying employment
to job applicants lacking clearance or referral therefrom , or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment , or any other
working conditions , of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
our employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of their right to
self-organization , to form or join any union , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to re-
frain from any and all such activities , except to the extent that such rights may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a union as a condition
of employment , as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as modified by the Labor -Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
IF WE still need journeymen sheet metal workers on the Pennsylvania Elec-
tric Company project in Johnstown , Pennsylvania, we will offer Alonzo C.
Lanier immediate employment as a journeyman sheet metal worker on that
project, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make Alonzo C. Lanier whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered because of the discrimination against him.
THE HUGHES CORPORATION,
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.
B. H. Hadley, Inc. and International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-4492. February 21, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Oil November 21, 1.961, Trial Exarriiiier Martin S. Bennett issued
his Intermediate Report herein, finding that*the Respondent had en-
gaged-in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices violative
135 NLRB No . 126.
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
as its Order.'
MEMBERS FANNING and BROWN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
'The following is to be inserted in the notice below the sentence beginning "This
notice must remain posted . . .': Employees may communicate directly with the Board's
Regional Office, Eastern Columbia Bldg., 849 S Broadway, Los Angeles, Calif., Tel. No.
Richmond 9-4711, Ext. 1031, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with Its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard at Los Angeles , California, on October 9, 1961 . The com-
plaint alleges that commencing on or about July 27 , 1961 , Respondent, B. H.
Hadley, Inc ., refused to bargain with International Association of Machinists, Dis-
trict Lodge No. 120, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , and had thereby engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of
the Act . Oral argument was waived and briefs have been submitted by the General
Counsel and Respondent. A motion by all parties to correct certain errors in the
transcript is hereby granted . Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
B. H. Hadley, Inc ., is a California corporation maintaining its place of business
at Pomona , California, where it is engaged in the manufacture of aircraft and
missile products . During the year preceding the issuance of this complaint , Respond-
ent shipped products valued in excess of $50 ,000 to points outside the State of
California . I find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it would effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists , District Lodge No. 120, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
There is one basic issue in this case . After the customary representation proceed-
ing, the Board certified the Union on July 20, 1961 , as the representative of the
employees of Respondent in a designated unit . Respondent has challenged the
appropriateness of the unit and the validity of the election procedure on various
B. H. HADLEY, INC. 1233
grounds and has admittedly refused on or after July 27, 1961, to recognize the
certification and bargain with the Union.
B. The history of the representation case
The representation case leading up to the certification under consideration herein
commenced with the filing of a petition by the Union on October 17, 1960, in Case
No. 21-RC-6690. The unit requested was "all machinists, their apprentices and
helpers." A hearing was duly held in Los Angeles on November 7, 1960, with all
parties participating, although, as Respondent's coun^sl argues herein, Respondent
saw fit to have its vice president represent it at that hearing. The parties thereafter
were given an -opportunity to file briefs with the Board in Washington. On March
29, 1961, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election consisting of some
41/2 pages. B. H. Hadley, Inc., 130 NLRB 1622. Therein, the Board stated:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of machinists employed at the Employer's Pomona,
California, plant, or in the alternative, any other unit that the Board may
find appropriate. The Petitioner amended its petition at the conclusion of the
hearing to include in the unit of machinists the following job classifications:
toolroom machinists, tool and fixture makers, tool and cutter grinders, hone,
operators, precision production grinders, Hardinge machine operators, turret
lathe operators A and B, engine lathe operators A and B, milling machine
operators, and maintenance machinist mechanics. The Employer contends
that the sole appropriate unit consists of all its production and maintenance
employees, including the machinists sought by the Petitioner, because, among
other things, the machinists, like the bulk of the employees sought to be ex-
cluded, are engaged in production work and the Employer's entire operation is
integrated. There is no history of collective bargaining covering any of the
Employer's employees. [Emphasis added.]
The Board then went on to consider the nature of Respondent's operations, viz,
"the design, development, manufacture, and testing of complex and precise fluid-
handling devices and controls" as carried on in four buildings. The various shops
and the machines found therein were considered, together with the classifications
and pay scales of the employees operating the equipment. Note was taken that the
machine shop and toolroom have common supervision, whereas other departments
were separately supervised. There was discussion of the amount of experience re-
quired for the various operations and also of the progression of employees from
machine operator to machinist. The Board pointed out that transfers from the
machine shop or toolroom to other departments were infrequent, treated with the
testimony of several of Respondent's officers, and finally noted as follows:
As indicated above, the Employer contends that the unit of machinists
sought is inappropriate because its operations are integrated. We find no
merit in this contention. The integrated nature of the Employer's operations
does not preclude establishment of a craft unit. Although the Employer does
not maintain an apprenticeship program, it requires extensive experience as a
prerequisite to hiring of machinists. These machinists are craftsmen who
regularly exercise their craft skills and comprise a traditional craft grouping.
The right of separate representation for members of a craft is not to be de-
nied merely because the craft employees work in close association with other
employees, or because all employees enjoy similar working conditions, or
because the craftsmen use their skills directly on parts of the final product.
Accordingly, we find that the machinists at the Employer's plant, being a
homogeneous craft group, may constitute an appropriate craft unit.
However, we do not agree with the Petitioner's contention that a proper unit
is one limited to the machinists working in the machine shop and toolroom
area, since the record shows that employees performing the work of machinists
are employed in other areas of the Employer's plant. Burrers and drill press
operators have the same normal progression of advancement as the machinists
sought by the Petitioner; and, experience, similar to that required of the ma-
chinists sought, is required before burrers and drill press operators are hired
by the Employer. Although they are under different supervision from that of
the machinists in the machine shop and toolroom area, the development tech-
nicians who operate machines in the assembly and testing building perform
substantially the same type of work as the machinists petitioned for. The mere
fact that craft employees have common supervision with employees outside
634449-62-vol. 135-79
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their craft does not prevent craftsmen from being represented in a unit of their
own craft . Worzella Publishing Company, supra. Since the burrers, drill
press operators, and the development technicians who operate machines are
all machinists performing work similar to that of the machinists petitioned
for, we will include them in the unit . Accordingly, we find that the following
employees of the Employer , regardless of the building or department in which
they may be employed , may constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All machinists, including toolroom machinists A and B, tool and fixture
makers , tool and cutter grinders , hone operators , precision production grinders,
Hardinge machine operators , turret lathe operators A and B, engine lathe
operators A and B, milling machine operators A and B, maintenance machine
mechanics , drill press operators A and B, burrers, and development technicians
who operate machines, but excluding all other production and maintenance
employees , office clericals , guards , watchmen, professional employees, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
On April 13, 1961, counsel for Respondent filed with the Board a "Motion of
Employer for Amendment of Direction of Election Extending Time in Which Elec-
tion May Be ' Held; and Motion for Reconsideration and Rehearing ." Therein,
Respondent asked the Board to take three steps:
(1) To amend its direction of election to delay the election [then scheduled
for April 27] until the Board considered the Employer's motion for reconsidera-
tion or rehearing, and
(2) To reconsider its decision and the Employer's contention that the unit
found appropriate by the Board was not only inappropriate , but one which left
residual groups that could not be combined into any appropriate unit, or
(3) To reopen' the record and hold further hearings inasmuch as the record
lacked relevant facts bearing upon the questions involved and was inadequate
for the determination of an appropriate unit.
Respondent pointed out that it had not been represented by counsel but rather by
its vice president and its personnel manager, whereas the Charging Party had been
represented by counsel.' Respondent presented in this motion a number of purported
facts concerning the question of unit, contending that some of these facts were not
reflected in the original transcript and that others were incorrectly stated therein.
In brief, reference was had to the machinery in Respondent 's machine shop and
the classifications of the operators therein. Respondent then attacked the applica-
tion of the craft severance concept to this case , claiming that the unit found appro-
priate by the Board consisted of 80 out of 125 employees and that the excluded
,
employees did not themselves constitute an appropriate production and maintenance
unit but rather constituted small groups of disjointed employees.
Respondent went in some detail into the various crafts and classifications in the
plant and the respective skills found as well as the experience requirements. It
attacked the emphasis given to certain testimony by Respondent's personnel manager,
contending that his testimony that 15 to 25 years' experience for special machine
operators was desirable was not tantamount to a requirement therefor. It then
claimed that the Board 's decision that there was no interchange of employees doing
machinist work with other job classifications misstated the record.
The record in the representation case was further attacked as inadequate because
certain classifications, not included in the unit found appropriate, were allegedly as
skilled as those within the unit . In essence , Respondent contended that a craft unit
could not be so large , in view of prior Board holdings on the subject, conceding that
at most , only 14 employees in 3 toolroom classifications might constitute a true craft
unit.
Attention was drawn to the fact that the Union had in past years filed petitions for
a full production and maintenance unit. These petitions are in evidence herein and
disclose that petitions were filed in 1957, 1958, and two in 4959 . Respondent then
asked for an amendment of the Decision and Direction of Election and for the direc-
tion of an election in a standard production and maintenance unit and , in the alterna-
tive, for the reopening of the record and for the conduct of further hearings.
On April 21, 1961 , the Board denied Respondent 's motion in its entirety. The
election was held as scheduled on April 27, 1961 . Of 84 eligible voters, 83 voted.
The Union received 44 votes," 34 votes were cast against it, and 5 ballots were chal-
' There is no contention herein that Respondent had attempted at any prior time to
obtain counsel or had expressed a desire to do so.
B. H. HADLEY, INC. 1235
lenged. On May 2, 1961,, Respondent timely filed with the Board -its objections to
conduct of election. Therein, Respondent asked the Board to set the election aside
for various reasons. It pointed out that certain employees desirous of voting, later
identified as assemblers , were advised by the Board agent conducting the election
that they were ineligible, and were not permitted to vote a challenged ballot; their
number was allegedly in excess of 10. Respondent argued that this was beyond the
authority of the agent and that another election should be held wherein any employees
of Respondent who desired to vote should be given the opportunity to vote subject
to challenge.
Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the .Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region conducted an investigation of the matter and,
on May 26, 1961, issued his report on objections which is in evidence herein. He
discussed the preelection conference held on the day before the election at which
Respondent submitted its list of eligible voters, noting: "After a review and discussion
of the list, the only issue raised by the parties related to employees in the classifica-
tions of development and test technicians." The report further states that "No
employees classified as Assembler were listed [on the eligibility list] and there was
no contention advanced that they were eligible. In the election, all employees on the
Employer's list of eligibles cast ballots except three." [Emphasis added.].
. The report then treated in detail with the issue of the assemblers, noting that a
group of employees from the assembling department attempted to vote and the
Board agent, after ascertaining that their classification was that of assembler, ruled
that they were not within the appropriate unit, were ineligible to vote, and that he
would not permit anyone in this classification to cast a challenged ballot. A spokes-
man for the group claimed at the time that they were eligible because they had voted
in prior elections for a production and maintenance unit in 1958 and 1959. The
Regional Director discussed the fact that approximately nine assemblers in this group
informed other assemblers of the decision by the Board agent and that the others
therefore did not present themselves at the polls; this entire group consisted of approx-
imately 13 persons.
The Regional Director conceded that the group was sufficiently large to affect the
results of the election, had they been eligible, but then proceeded to explicate his
findings why they were not. He pointed out that they were not included in the craft
unit found appropriate by the Board and stated as follows:
In fact, a point urged by the Employer as to the appropriateness of a
production and maintenance unit as opposed to the craft unit found appropriate
by the Board, was that there was a community of interest between the excluded
Assemblers and the employees in the classifications making up the craft unit.
The investigation further discloses that none of the Assemblers were eligible
to vote on an individual basis. No Assembler spends 50 percent or more of his
time on work similar to that performed by employees in the craft unit. As
acknowledged by the Employer "While a number of employees in the assembly
classification operate machine tools , none of these assemblers operate such
machine tools a majority of the time when they are working in the classification
of assembler. As stated in one of the affidavits, some of these assemblers are
`loaned ' to the machine shop from time to time and work in one of the classifica-
tions included in the Direction of Election full time for the period of the loan.
However, they are not working as assemblers in such cases but are working
as incumbents of one of the machine shop classifications." The undersigned
concludes from the investigation that no eligible employee was denied the right
to cast a ballot in the election by the Board Agent.
The report further noted that Respondent conceded the assemblers were not on
the eligibility list, but contended that under the Board's Rules and Regulations they
should have been permitted to cast challenged ballots. The claim was made that
other employees not on the list of eligibles or in one of the described classifications
in the unit were permitted to cast challenged ballots. He further found that four
employees not on the list appeared at the polls and did cast challenged ballots,
finding as follows:
With respect to this last contention , the investigation shows in addition to
the Assemblers , four other employees not on the Employer 's list of eligibles
appeared at the polls and were permitted- to cast challenged ballots. The parties
subsequently agreed that one of the four was eligible and his challenged ballot was
opened prior to the count and included with the other ballots. Another of these
challenged ballots, an electronic technician , was similarly disposed of prior to
the count by the parties' agreement as to his ineligibility. The parties could
not agree with respect to the two remaining challenged ballots and they along
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Petitioner's three challenges of employees (Development and Test Tech-
nicians ) whose names did appear on the list of eligibles, make up the five
challenged ballots reflected in the Tally of Ballots.
The Regional Director then recommended that the objections be overruled and
that the Union be certified.
On June 2, 1961, Respondent submitted exceptions to the report on objections.
It reitrated its requests for another election because of the assemblers' problem
discussed above, contended that certain affidavits submitted to the Regional Office
were not treated in the report on objections, and proceeded to give the content of
these affidavits. Again, Respondent stressed the right of an employee who felt he
performed a function within the unit to vote a challenged ballot. It contended that
this was not a matter for employer or union decision but rather one for the employee
to decide. Reference was again made to the fact that some challenged ballots had
been cast.
On July 20, 1961, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives wherein it stated that after considering the objections to the election,
the Regional Director's report and the exceptions thereto, it was adopting the recom-
mendations of the Regional Director and accordingly certifying the Union. It
specifically treated with the issue of the assemblers and stated as follows:
As the unit description on its face does not specifically include "assemblers,"
and as the Regional Director found, and the Employer admits, that the as-
semblers in question do not spend 50 percent or more of their time performing
work similar to that performed by employees in the appropriate unit, it is
clear that assemblers were not eligible to vote in the election. See Denver-
Colorado Springs-Pueblo Motor Way, 129 NLRB 1184, 1185. Accordingly,
we find no merit in the Employer's contentions that the denial of the Board
agent to permit such assemblers to vote challenged ballots, constitutes grounds
for setting aside the election.
C. Respondent's contentions
As noted, Respondent concedes that it has refused to recognize and bargain with
the Union and presses a number of reasons why the certification of the Union should
not be recognized. As an initial premise herein, the Board has recently reaffirmed
its longstanding doctrine , stating: "It is the policy of the Board not to allow a party
to relitigate in a complaint proceeding such as this one the legal effect of matters
which the party has already litigated and the Board has decided in a prior representa-
tion proceeding." Producers, Inc., 133 NLRB 701. See O.K. Van and Storage,
Inc., 127 NLRB 1537.
(1) Respondent still presses herein its position previously submitted to and
elaborated before the Board wherein it challenges the appropriateness of the unit
established by the latter I sustained herein the objection by the General Counsel to
the introduction of any evidence on this topic. This evidence, it may be noted, did not
consist of newly arisen evidence of any drastic change in Respondent's organizational
structure, but was evidence of classifications, skills, and progressions of employees.
Indeed, Respondent , with commendable candor, conceded herein that this contention
with respect to appropriate unit had been raised before the Board in its motion for
reconsideration of the original Board's decision. See Trancoa Chemical Corpora-
tion, 133 NLRB 791.
(2) Respondent has also raised the contention' that employees not in the unit
improperly voted without challenge. Objection was sustained herein to the offer of
testimony by one Jean Loubet, an observer at the election, that employees from
without the unit had so voted without challenge.
This matter was not raised by Respondent in its objections to the conduct of the
election and, accordingly, was not subsequently treated, either in the report on
objections or in the Supplemental Decision. Assuming the truth of the allegation,
this is nevertheless an objection to the conduct of the election and I do not accept
Respondent's contention that it is not such an objection. Accordingly, it has been
waived for it is clearly covered by Section 102.69 of the Rules and Regulations of
the Board which specifies that any objection to the conduct of an election or conduct
affecting the results of an election "must be timely" filed within 5 days after the
tally of ballots has been furnished to the parties. Indeed, a, similar contention was
argued before and rejected by the Supreme Court in N.L.R B. v. A. J. Tower Com-
pany, 329 U.S. 324.
(3) As a corollary to the foregoing, Respondent claims that this claim is not
raised as an objection to the conduct of the election but rather for the purpose of
demonstrating that the parties themselves have abandoned the unit 'certified by the
B. H. HADLEY, IN C. 1237
Board. There is no evidence that the Union ever so acted and of course it urges the
contrary herein. In any event, I fail to see how the casting of several ballots by
ineligible voters, assuming that it did take place, can be stretched into an abandonment
of a certified unit by the Union or, for that matter, by Respondent.
(4) Respondent has also stressed the fact that the Board agent should have
permitted the group of assemblers to vote challenged ballots rather than to refuse
to permit them to vote. This topic, of course, has received much attention in the
representation case and is reflected therein . More particularly , it was raised before
the Board and was flatly treated by the Board in the Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representatives wherein it held that they were not eligible to vote
in the election and further found no merit in Respondent 's contention that the
refusal to permit them to cast a challenged ballot was grounds for setting aside the
election. Furthermore, I fail to see how Respondent has been prejudiced by this
treatment of the issue. Assuming that the ballots had been cast and challenged,
the Board has already resolved this issue adversely to Respondent and has held, in
effect, that the ballots could not be counted. The net result is the same.
(5) Respondent has also contended that interviews were not conducted by the
Regional Director with those persons who were not permitted to vote a challenged
ballot. Initially, I believe this entire topic has been resolved adversely to Respondent
by the Board's decision referred to above and may not. properly be raised at this
point. Secondly, in any event, the Board's decision did treat with the job duties
of the assemblers. There was and is no conflict over the fact that they were not
permitted to cast ballots. The issue was their job content and, at a postelection
stage of the case, I see no basis for interviewing them on a matter previously treated,
considered , and resolved.
(6) Respondent has raised one additional matter. It points to the fact that the
Union had previously filed representation petitions in 1957, 1958, and 1959, seeking
a full production and maintenance unit of Respondent 's employees . It contends
that after prior attempts to achieve recognition on a plantwide basis were unsuc-
cessful , the Union then devised a smaller unit.
One modification of Respondent 's position is in order , however . The Decision
and Direction of Election in the instant case discloses that the Union sought less
than a plantwide unit but that it also sought "in the alternative any other unit that
the Board may find appropriate." Respondent then urged the appropriateness of
the production and maintenance unit but the Board rejected the claim and pro-
ceeded to find that the present unit was appropriate. It follows, therefore, that this
too is a matter previously litigated and considered by the Board herein.
D. Conclusions as to appropriate unit; majority representation; and the refusal
to bargain
- It is well established that the representation proceeding and the unfair labor
practice proceeding are really one and that a single trial of the representation issue
is enough. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146. The pro-
vision in Section 9(d) of the Act for judicial review of the representation record
by making it part of the record in the complaint case affords an employer "a com-
plete guarantee against arbitrary action by the Board." See S. Rept. No. 573, 74th
Cong., 1st sess. p. 14. This provision would be superfluous if hearings de novo
were required on previously determined representation issues. It is also settled
that "an issue covered and decided in unit [representation ] proceedings can not as
of right be re-litigated in a subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding ." N.L.R.B.
v. Worcester Woolen Mills Corporation, 170 F. 2d 13 (C.A. 1), cert. denied 336
U.S. 903. See also N.L.R.B. v. Moss Amber Mfg. Company, 264 F. 2d 107 (C A.
9); Foreman & Clark, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 215 F. 2d 396 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 348
U.S 887; and Harris Langenberg Hat Co. v. N.L.R.B., 216 F. 2d 146 (C.A. 8).
Needless to say, as demonstrated above, the Board has previously given considerable
attention to the unit question and to the conduct of the election , and other contentions
have been waived or are trivial.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a Board determi-
nation as to appropriate unit will not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary and
capricious and, in, the same decision, approved the Board rule that objections to
elections not timely raised are waived. N.L.R.B v. Deutsch Company, 265 F. 2d
473 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 361 U.S. 936, rehearing denied 362 U.S. 945. Accord-
ingly, I find that Respondent's contentions with respect' to -appropriate unit and
majority representation are without merit and further find that the Board certifica-
tion is entitled to recognition herein.
I find, therefore, as alleged in the complaint, that all machinists, including tool-
room machinists A and B , tool and fixture makers, tool and cutter grinders, hone
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operators, precision production grinders, Hardinge machine operators, turret lathe
operators A and B, engine lathe operators A and B, milling machine operators
A and B, maintenance machine mechanics, drill press operators A and B, burrers,
and development technicians who operate machines, but excluding all other produc-
tion and maintenance employees, office clericals, 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.
I further find that, pursuant to the Board's certification of July 20, 1961, the
Union has been and now is the representative of the employees in the above-
described appropriate unit, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act.
The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and I find that Respondent
on and after July 27, 1961, refused to recognize and bargain•with the Union as the
representative of its employees in the above-described unit. I find, accordingly,
that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Royal McBee Corporation, 133 NLRB 1450.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain. affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies 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. International Association of Machinists, District Lodge •No..120, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. B. H. Hadley, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act.
3. All machinists, including toolroom machinists A and B, tool and fixture makers,
tool and cutter grinders, hone operators, precision production grinders, Hardinge
machine operators, turret lathe operators A and B, engine lathe operators A and B,
milling machine operators A and B, maintenance machine mechanics, drill press
operators A and B, burrers, and development technicians who operate machines,
employed by Respondent, excluding all other production and maintenance em-
ployees, office clericals, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 120, AFL-CIO, at
all times since July 20, 1961, has been and now is the exclusive representative of
the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to recognize and bargain with International Association of Ma-
chinists, District Lodge No. 120, AFL-CIO, on and after July 27, 1961, as the
representative of its employees in the above-described appropriate unit, and by
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
under the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (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.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
recommended that Respondent , B. H. Hadley, Inc., Pomona, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease land desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with International Association of Machin-
ists„ District Lodge No. 120, AFL-CIO, as the representative of its employees in the
above-described appropriate unit.
B. H. HADLEY, INC. 1239
(b) In any like or related manner refusing to bargain with said Union , or inter-
fering with , restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent permitted under Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with International Association of Machin-
ists , District Lodge No . 120, AFL-CIO, as the representative of its employees in the
above-described appropriate unit and , if an understanding is reached , embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
,(b) Post at its plant at Pomona, California , copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional, Di-
rector for the Twenty -first Region , shall , after being signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places , including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of
this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order , what steps it has taken to comply
herewith .3
2In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
31n the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommended order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize International Association of Machinists,
District Lodge No . 120, AFL-CIO, as the representative of our employees in
the unit described below. The bargaining unit is:
All machinists, including toolroom machinists A and B, tool and fixture
makers , tool and cutter grinders , hone operators , precision production
grinders , Hardinge machine operators , turret lathe operators A and B,
engine lathe operators A and B, milling machine operators A and B, main-
tenance machine mechanics , drill press operators A and B, burrers, and
development technicians who operate machines , but excluding all other
production and maintenance employees , office clericals , guards , watch-
men, professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL , upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor
organization concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , or other
conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached , we will embody
said understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner refuse to bargain with said Union
as the representative of our employees in said unit or interfere with , restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran teed by Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent permitted under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
B. H. HADLEY, 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.