Banner Yarn Dyeing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 298 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

.298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Banner Yarn Dyeing Corporation ; National Gypsum Company;
Mason Au & Magenheimer Confectionery Manufacturing
'Company, Inc .; Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company ; Stahl-Meyer,
-Inc.; Rockwood Chocolate Co., Inc.; and William Neville and
Local 30, 30A , 30B, and 30C, International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO, Party in Interest . Cases Nos. 2-CA-
7791-1, 2-CA-7791-4, 2-CA-7791-5, 2-CA-7791-7, 2-CA-7791-8,
,and 2-CA-7791-10. January 15, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER SEVERING CASES
AND REMANDING
On June 6, 1961, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner C. W.
Whittemore in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding. At the
hearing, each of the Respondents and the Party in Interest joined in a
motion to dismiss the complaint as being insufficient on its face. In
-addition, a joint motion to sever the consolidated cases was made.
The Trial Examiner dismissed the proceeding at the hearing on the
ground that the averments in the complaint failed to allege a cause
,of action under Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. He also denied the
motion to sever. Thereafter, the General Counsel petitioned the
Board for review of the Trial Examiner's ruling. All Respondents
and the Party in Interest have filed briefs in opposition to the petition
for review.' Respondents also urge that, in the event the Trial Ex-
aminer's dismissal of the complaint be reversed and the proceeding
be remanded for further hearing, the consolidated cases should be
severed.
The Board has duly considered the averments in the complaint and
is of the opinion that the allegations contained therein, if proven, are
sufficient to sustain a finding of a violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the
Act. Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel's petition for review
and shall remand this proceeding for further hearing before a Trial
Examiner and for the preparation and issuance of appropriate
Intermediate Reports.
The Board has also considered the joint motion to sever the instant
cases and is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. The
complaint, in charging each of the Respondents with a violation of
Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, does not allege that the Respondents acted
jointly or in concert in the conduct alleged to be unlawful, or that
,any common relationship existed between the acts of one Respondent
and those of another. In fact, the record shows that, for the most
part, the various Respondents are engaged in different industries and
'Respondents' request for oral argument is hereby denied as , in our opinion, the record
and briefs adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties
135 NLRB No. 32.
COWLITZ VENEER COMPANY 299
the only factor common to all is that each Respondent has a separate
contract with the same union local. In our opinion, consolidation
of these cases is not warranted. We therefore grant the joint motion
to sever.
[The Board remanded the above-entitled cases to the Regional
Director for the Second Region for the purpose of arranging a further
hearing herein and authorized the Regional Director to issue notice
thereof. The Board also severed the above-entitled consolidated
cases.]
Cowlitz Veneer Company and Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union,
Local No. 2767 of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join-
ers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 19-CA-2219. January 16,
1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 25, 1961, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his
Intermediate 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 Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, a supporting brief, and a request for oral
argument.'
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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusion's, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner .2
'Because. in our opinion the record. exceptions , and brief adequately set forth the issues
and positions of the parties , this request is hereby denied
2In adopting the Trial Examiner 's findings , we correct the following inadvertencles
which appear in the Intermediate Report . Audrey Meade is excluded from the list of
employees recalled arter May 5, 1961 (page 304, line 25 ). The finding that Respond-
ent engaged in discrimination against Local 2767 of United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America is corrected by deleting the name of the Union and inserting the
names of employees Zelia Hessler , Dorothy Callahan, Lowell Hessler, and Byron Barker
(page 305, lines 50 and 51)
Member Rodgers agrees with his colleagues that Respondent had knowledge of the union
activities of those employees found to have been discriminatorily selected for discharge.
However, in reaching this result, Member Rodgers does not rely upon the small comple-
ment of Respondent 's employees or the fact that Respondent 's plant is located in a town
of few inhabitants. -
135 NLRB No. 31.