Bauman Brothers Furniture Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 27, 1939

18 N.L.R.B. 773 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of MAX BAUMAN, HARRY BAUMAN, STANLEY BAUMAN,
MORRIS BAUMAN , AND LEO BAUMAN, DOING BUSINESS As BAUMAN
BROTHERS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY' and UNITED FuR-
NITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 576, C. I. O.
Cases Nos. C-1174 and R-1106.-Decided December 07, 1939
Furniture Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion:
discriminatory statements by partners and supervisory employees-Discrimina-
tion: charges of dismissed ; discharges upheld under valid closed-shop contracts-
Units Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: (1) all production employees ex-
cluding office workers, teamsters, upholsterers, and supervisory employees ;
(2) all upholsterers-Representatives: proof introduced by rival unions requires
an election-Collective Bargaining: charges of refusal to bargain dismissed;
closed-shop contracts and insufficient proof of a majority justified the refusal to
bargain-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning representa-
tion of employees: rival unions claim to represent a majority in the appropriate
units ; closed-shop contract renewed after petition filed, no bar to-Elections
Ordered: determination of the date of election and eligibility date postponed until
effects of respondents' unfair labor practices have been dissipated.
Mr. Frank A. Mouritsen, for the Board.
Mr. Gustave L. Goldstein, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the respondent.
Gallagher, Wirin and Johnson and Lee Stanton, by Mr. Lee Stanton,
of Los Angeles, Calif., for Local No. 576.
Mr. Arthur Garrett and Mr. Francis C. Jones, of Los Angeles, Calif.,
for the A. F. of L.
Mr. Ray Johnson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND r
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 16, 1938, United Furniture Workers of America, Local
No. 576, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called Local No. 576, filed with the Regional Director for the
'The pleadings were amended at the hearing to state the name of the respondents as
indicated above.
18 N. L. R. B., No. 91.
773
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California) a petition alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Max Bauman, Harry Bauman, Stanley Bau-
man, Morris Bauman, and Leo Bauman, doing business as Bauman
Brothers Furniture Manufacturing Company, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, herein called the respondents, and requesting an investigation
and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On September 9, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c)
of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered the Re-
gional Director to conduct an investigation and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On October 5, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing
in the representation case, copies of which were duly served upon the
respondents, upon Local No. 576, and upon Furniture Workers' Union
Local No. 1561, affiliated with the United Carpenters and Joiners of
America and with the American Federation of Labor, herein called
Local No. 1561, upon Upholsterers' International Union of North
America, Local No. 15,2 affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, herein called Local No. 15, upon United Brotherhood. of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, herein called the Brotherhood, and upon Los Angeles
County District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and with the
American Federation of Labor, herein called the District Council.
All unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor will be
hereinafter collectively called the A. F. of L.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on the representation case
in Los Angeles, California, from October 13 to 17, 1938, before Albert
L. Lohm, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the
beginning of the hearing on the representation case, Local No. 15,
Local No. 1561, the Brotherhood, and the District Council filed peti-
tions to intervene, which were granted. All parties were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
On August 5, 1938, Local No. 576 filed charges, and on October 14,
1938, amended charges with the Regional Director, alleging that the
respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac-
2 Formerly known as Local 15, Upholsterers, Furniture, Carpet and Linoleum Mechanics'
International Union of North America. Its present name is stated in various ways in the
record.
BADMAN BROTHERS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING 001\11?ANy 775
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3),
and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
On October '15, 1938, during the course of hearing on the repre=
sentation case, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (b)
and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations,
ordered that the representation proceeding and the proceeding with
respect to the alleged unfair labor practices be consolidated for all
purposes, and that one record of the hearing be made. On the same
day, the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint and
on October 21, 1938, its amended complaint alleging that the respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice
of consolidated hearing were duly served upon the respondents, upon
Local No; 576, upon Local No. 1561, upon Local No. 15, upon the
Brotherhood, and upon the District Council. All parties waived the
statutory notice.
Concerning, the unfair labor practices, the complaint and amended
complaint alleged in substance that the respondents (1) on or about
August 8, 1938, discharged Hollis Jones, and on or about August 26,
1938, discharged A. L. Hollis because they joined and assisted Local
No. 576; (2) that the respondents during the month of August 1938
refused to hire and retain any employees who were members of Local
No. 576 because of their union affiliation; (3) that on or about August
4, 1938, and at all times thereafter, the respondents refused to bargain
collectively with Local No. 576, although prior to August 4, 1938, and
thereafter, a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit had
designated Local No. 576 as their exclusive representative for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining; (4) that the respondents from February
10, 1938, to the date the complaint was issued, permitted members of
the A. F. of L. to carry on union activities in the plant and refused to
permit members of Local No. 576 to carry on such activities; and (5)
that by these and by other acts the respondents interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On October 21, 1938, the respondents filed their answer in which
they admitted the allegations of the complaint and amended complaint
concerning the nature and scope of their business, but denied the
allegations of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing was held in Los Angeles,
California, on October 21, 24, and 25, 1938, before Albert L. Lohm,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the beginning
of the hearing, the Board served an amendment to the complaint and
283029-41-vol. 18-59
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice of continuance upon all parties. All parties waived the period
of notice as provided in the Rules and Regulations of the Board and
agreed that the hearing on the amended complaint might proceed as
if copies of the amended complaint had been served upon all parties
five (5) days prior to the hearing. All parties also waived any
irregularities in the service of notice of continuance. The respondents
answered orally the allegations of the amended complaint, denying
each and every allegation thereof. The entire record in the repre-
sentation case, Case No. R-1106, was incorporated into the proceeding
on the consolidated cases by stipulation of all parties.
All parties were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was af-
forded all parties. At the conclusion of the Board's case, the respond-
ents moved to dismiss the petition and the complaint. At the
conclusion of the respondents' case, the A. F. of L. moved to dismiss
the petition. The Trial Examiner denied these motions. The rulings
are hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing the Trial Ex-
aminer made rulings upon other motions and upon objections to the
admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On February 2, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report finding that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
but that the respondents had not discriminated with regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Hollis Jones. He recommended
that the Board order the respondents to cease and desist from their
unfair labor practices, reinstate with back pay A. L. Hollis, bargain
collectively with Local No. 576, and take certain other affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Copies of the Intermediate
Report were duly served on all the parties.
The respondents filed no exceptions to the Intermediate Report but
have filed a brief which has been considered by the Board. On Feb-
ruary 10, 1939, the A. F. of L. filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and requested oral argument.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties, a hearing was
held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on September 14, 1939,
for the purpose of oral argument. The A. F. of L. was represented
by counsel and participated. Neither the respondents nor Local No.
576 appeared. The Board has considered the exceptions filed by the
A. F. of L. to the Intermediate Report, and, except in so far as they
are consistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, order and
direction set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
BAUM.AN BROTHERS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 777
Upon the entire record in the case , the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents are a partnership composed of Max, Harry,
Stanley, Morris, and Leo Bauman, doing business as Bauman Brothers
Furniture Manufacturing Company. The respondents manufacture
upholstered furniture and mattresses at their plant located at Los
Angeles, California.
At the Los Angeles plant the respondents use large quantities of
raw materials, principally hardwood, cotton, springs, upholstery
fabrics, fiber, hair, findings, hardware, and burlap. During the year
1937, the value of raw materials used was $176,781.64, approximately
20 per cent of which was shipped to the Los Angeles plant from points
outside the State of California.
.During the year 1937, the total sales of the respondents were $343,-
379.13, approximately $54,410.97, or 15.8 per cent, of which were made
at points outside the State of California. The respondents admit that
they are engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, Local No. 576, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the
C. I. 0., is a labor organization admitting to its membership all pro-
duction employees of the respondents, excluding .office, clerical, and
supervisory employees.
Upholsterers' International Union of North America, Local No. 15,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to its membership all upholsterers employed by the
respondents.
Furniture Workers' Union Local No. 1561, affiliated with the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and also affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization ad-
mitting to its membership all production employees of the respond-
ents, excluding office workers, teamsters, and upholsterers.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization
of which Local No. 1561 is an affiliate.
Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters is a labor
organization affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, and also affiliated with the American Federation
.of L9,bor.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The alleged refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate units
The respondents' plant is composed of three departments, upholster-
ing, woodworking, and finishing. The finishing. department is oper-
ated under contract. The contractor provides all labor and materials,
and none of the parties contends that the finishing department should
be included in the appropriate unit, as the personnel thereof are not
employees of the respondents. We shall exclude the employees. in
the finishing department from the units we shall find appropriate.
Local No. 576 requests a unit composed of all production em-
ployees of the respondents, excluding office, clerical, and supervisory
employees. This would include employees in both the upholstering
and woodworking departments. An examination of: the exhibits. in
evidence reveals that the upholsterers and woodworkers have been
covered by separate contracts in the past. We shall follow the units
set up in the contracts.
We find that all production employees of the respondents, excluding
office workers, teamsters, upholsterers, and supervisory employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
We find that all upholsterers employed by the respondents consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
We find that these units will insure to employees of the respond-
ents the.full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective
bargaining and will otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. Alleged representation by Local No. 576 of a majority in the appro-
priate units; the alleged refusal to bargain
On September 11, 1937, the respondents entered into a closed-shop
contract with Local No. 1561 to expire on August 31, 1938, covering
all employees of the' respondents except office workers, teamsters, and
upholsterers. On November 1, 1937, the respondents entered into a
closed-shop contract with Local No. 15 covering all the upholsterers.
The contract with Local No. 15 contained an automatic 'continuance
clause which provided that the contract should remain in effect from
October -1, 1937, until August 31, 1938, and from year to year there-
after in the absence of written notice given by either party on, or
before July 1 of any year of a desire to change or terminate the.,con-
'tract. It was stipulated that each of the above contracts at the time
of its execution represented the desire of a majority of the employees
covered by said contract.
On January 25, 1938, the members of Local No. 15, whose member-
ship embraced employees of other companies as well as of the respond-
BAUMAN' BROTHERS FURNITURE MAN,UlACTU.RING COMPANY 779
ents, voted approximately 264 to 60 to affiliate with the C. I. 0. On
February 9, 1938, Local No. 1561, whose membership also embraced
employees of other companies as well as the respondents, voted ap-
proximately 121 to 40 to affiliate with the C. I. 0.3 There is no evi-
dence in the record to show how many of the respondents' employees
in each of these locals voted to affiliate with the C. I. 0. The respond-
ents employed approximately 60 men. The members of Locals Nos. 15
and 1561 who voted to affiliate with the C. I. 0. immediately joined
Local No. 576. After the vote for affiliation with the C. I. 0., a num-
ber of the respondents' employees refused to abide by the results of the
vote for affiliation with the C. I. 0. and retained their membership in
Locals Nos. 15 and 1561. It is not contended that Locals Nos. 15 and
1561. ceased to exist after the vote for affiliation with the C. I. 0.'
In the latter part of February 1938 the representatives of Local No.
576 met with members of the Upholstering Manufacturing League; an
association of employers including the respondents, and informed the
League members that Locals Nos. 15 and 1561 had voted to affiliate with
the C. I. 0. Local No. 576 offered to assume the A. F. of L. contracts,
and the League members made no objections. The evidence does not
show the extent to which the closed-shop provisions of the contracts
were operative in the respondents' plant from February to July 1938
in favor of the C. I. 0., nor does the evidence show whether new em-
ployees were hired by the respondents during this period. Morris
Bauman, one of the partners, testified, however, "I know that when-
ever I wanted a man for the upholsterers, particularly, it had to be
a C. I. 0. or we couldn't get any man in the shop." No notice of an
intention to terminate the contract with Local No. 15 was ever given
by either party.
About August 1, 1938, Locals Nos. 576 and 1561 agreed that in the
future new men would be employed from each union alternately. The
respondents agreed to abide by this arrangement but no members of
Local No. 576 were employed after this arrangement was made.
Shortly after August 1, the respondents and Local No. 1561 repudiated
this agreement, and the respondents, in fact, employed only members
of Local No. 1561, which insisted that the respondents observe the
closed-shop provisions of its contract.
On August 4, 1938, Local No. 576 presented to the respondents a
list signed by 33 of the 57 employees in the woodworking and up-
holstery departments who were on the pay roll as of August 13, 1938,
and requested the respondents to recognize it as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in these departments. The respondents
refused to recognize Local No. 576, stating that they had closed-shop
s There is no' evidence in the record to show what conditions a local must comply with
in order to sever its affiliation with . United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, or with Upholsterers ' International Union of North America.
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contracts with Locals Nos. 15 and 1561, but announcing that they
would recognize any union certified by the Board . The A. F. of L.
introduced in evidence a list signed by 43 employees, of whom 29
appear on the pay roll as of August 13, 1938. The signatures on the
list presented by Local No. 576 were obtained in July 1938 and those
appearing on the A. F. of L. list were obtained in September 1938. A
comparison of the list submitted by Local No. 576 with the pay roll
shows that Local No. 576, while representing a majority of all the.
employees as well as a majority of the employees in the upholstery
department, did not represent a majority of the employees in the
woodworking department. An examination of the list introduced in
evidence by the A. F. of L. shows that Local No. 1561 represented a
majority of the employees in the latter department in September
1938.
As we have observed above, Local No. 576 requested recognition as
the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in both
departments as a single unit. In view of our finding above with
respect to the appropriate units, the request of Local No..576 for ex-
clusive recognition of all the employees in a single unit, the failure of
Local No. 576 to show a majority representation of the employees in
each of the units, and the good faith displayed by the respondents in
meeting this request, and suggesting that Local No..576 obtain certifi-
cation from the Board, we do not find that the respondents refused to
bargain collectively with Local No. 576 within the meaning of the
Act.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Certain activities of the respondents' supervisors warrant special
mention. %
Mike Gamm testified that in July 1938, Andy Anderson, the mill
foreman, evidently referring to the possibility that an election would
be conducted by the Board, told him, "I want you boys all to join the
A. F. of L. and if the C. I. 0. wins we are going to close the shop."
This testimony was not denied. Gamm testified that Anderson's state-
ment was responsible for his joining Local No. 1561 shortly after-
wards. The respondents and Anderson testified that Anderson had
no authority to engage in union activities. However, the respondents
are responsible for the actions of their foreman. 4
Carl Solando testified that Morris Bauman approached him about
September 15, 1938, and said to him, "Carl, when you was an A.
F. of L. boy you was all right. Now that you are C. I. 0. you are
no good anymore." This testimony was not denied.
4 See Matter of Swift d Company, a Corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 641, and United Packinghouse Workers
Local Industrial Union No. $00, 7 N. L. R . B. 269; enf 'd, National Labor Relations Board
v. Swift & Company, a Corporation, 106 F. ( 2d) 87 (C. C. A. 10).
BAUMAN BROTHERS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 781
We find that the respondents by the acts set forth above have
interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in their
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The alleged discriminatory discharges
1. The discharge of A. L. Hollis
Hollis was a member of Local No. 1561 and was an employee of
the respondents at the time the closed-shop contract was negotiated
with Local No. 1561. Soon thereafter he quit. In July 1938, he
again obtained employment with the respondents through Local
No. 1561 and signed a membership card in Local No. 1561. About a
month later, he joined Local No. 576. On August 22, 1938, the
respondents received a letter from Local No. 1561 calling attention to
the closed-shop provision, stating that Hollis was not a member in
good standing, and demanding that he be discharged.
The closed-shop provision of the contract with Local No. 1561
provides : "The Company agrees to employ only members in good
standing of the Furniture Workers Union Local 1561, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, in their entire
factory. Office Workers, Teamsters, and Upholsterers to be ex-
cepted." An arbitration clause of the contract provides that when
a dispute arises over the interpretation of the contract the contro-
versy shall be settled by a joint conference board composed of seven
members. Three of the said members are to be selected by the union,
three by the respondent, and the six thus selected shall select the
seventh member. The decision of the joint conference board is to
be binding on both parties.
On August 25, 1938, Local No. 576 learned that Hollis was to be
discharged, and requested the respondents to call a meeting of the
arbitration committee as provided for in the contract with Local
No. 1561. On the same day, the respondents called a meeting of
the arbitration committee which decided against Hollis, and he was
discharged on August 26, 1938. The discharge was thus made pur-
suant to the closed-shop contract. As stated above, the contract was
concededly valid when made. We find that the discharge was per-
missible under Section 8 (3) of the Act.5 We will therefore dismiss
5 See Matter of Aeolian-American Corporation and Amalgamated Piano Workers of
America, 8 N . L. R. B. 1043. The relevant proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act Is as
follows : "Provided , that nothing In this Act, or In the National Industrial Recovery Act
(U. S. C., Supp. VII, title 15, Secs. 701-712 ), as amended from time to time , or in any
code or agreement approved or prescribed thereunder , or In any other statute of the
United States , shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor
organization ( not established , maintained , or assisted by any action defined in this Act
as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein,
if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided In Section
9 (a), in the appropriate collective bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made."
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
the allegations of the complaint that the respondents discriminated
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of A. L. Hollis.
2. The discharge of Hollis Jones
Hollis Jones, A. L. Hollis' helper, was discharged by the latter
on August 8, 1938, at the insistence of Anderson.. Jones was a mem-
ber of Local No. 576. As in the case of Hollis, the discharge was
permissible under Section 8 (3) of the Act. The allegations of the
complaint that the respondents discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Hollis Jones will therefore be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the acts of the respondents set forth in Section III
B above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond=
ents described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial 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
Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist from fur-
ther engaging in such practices and to post appropriate notices. We
shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it pertains to the respond-
ents' alleged refusal to bargain, and in so far as it pertains to the
alleged discrimination against Hollis and Jones.
VI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
As noted in Section III A above, both the C. I. 0. and the A. F.
of L. are claiming to represent a majority of the respondents' em-
ployees in the appropriate units. The closed-shop contracts entered
into in 1937 between the respondents and Locals Nos. 15 and 1561
do not, under the circumstances, constitute a bar to a present de-
termination of representatives. The contract with Local No. 1561
has expired and the petition herein was filed prior to the renewal
of the contract with Local No. 15.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the respondents.
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
BAUMAN BROTHERS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 783
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States,
and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
VIII. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As described above, the evidence with respect to representation
by the Unions consists of proof of membership as of August and
September 1938. In view of the time which was elapsed we find
that the question concerning representation which has arisen can
best be resolved by elections by secret ballot.
Since the respondent has, by engaging in various unfair labor
practices, interfered with the exercise by its employees of the rights
guaranteed them by the Act, we shall not now set a date for the
election. We shall hold the election, however, upon receipt of in-
formation from the Regional Director that the circumstances permit
a free choice of representatives unaffected by the respondents' un-
lawful acts. At the time we set the date for holding the election,
we shall determine the pay-roll date to be used in ascertaining the
eligibility of employees.
Upon the basis of the ' above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Furniture Workers of America, Local No. 576, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations; Upholsterers' Inter-
national Union of North America, Local No. 15, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor; Furniture Workers' Union Local
No. 1561, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, and also affiliated with the American Federa-
tion 'of Labor; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; and
Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and
also affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; are labor
organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,. the re-
spondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The respondents have not engaged in and are not engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The respondents have not engaged in and are not engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
6. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the respondents, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
7. All employees of the respondents excluding office workers, team-
sters, upholsterers, and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
8. All upholsterers employed by the respondents constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondents, Max Bauman, Harry Bauman, Stanley Bauman,
Morris Bauman, and Leo Bauman, doing business as Bauman Broth-
ers Furniture Manufacturing Company, their officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid 'or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Immediately post notices to all their employees in conspicuous
places throughout their Los Angeles plant, and maintain such notices
for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the
respondents will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraph
1 hereof;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
that the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (5) of the
Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
PAUMAN BROTHERS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 785
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Max Bauman, Harry Bauman, Stanley Bauman, Leo A. Bau-
man, and Morris N. Bauman, doing.business as Bauman Brothers
Furniture Manufacturing Company, Los Angeles, California, elec-
tions by secret ballot shall be conducted at such time as the Board
will in the future direct, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and subject to
Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among :
(a) All employees of the respondents, excluding office workers,
teamsters, upholsterers, and supervisory employees, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by United Furniture Workers
of America, Local No. 576, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, by Furniture Workers' Union, Local No. 1561, affiliated
with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
and also affiliated with the.American Federation of Labor, or by
neither ;
(b) All upholsterers employed by the respondents to determine
whether they desire to be represented by United Furniture Workers
of America, Local No. 576, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, by Upholsterers' International Union of North Amer-
ica, Local No. 15, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections.