Bell Bakeries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 522 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX C
-38
37
-36
-35
-34
30 05
3318
-33
-32
-31
-30
-29
-28
-27
-26
-25
24
-23
-22
25.26
2178
-21
-26
Bell Bakeries, Inc. and Local Union No. 361, The American
Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union,
AFL-CIO. Case No 12-CA-844 February 8, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 10, 1959, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose 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
126 NLRB No 63
BELL BAKERIES, INC. 523
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs to the Inter-
mediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connections with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and briefs,' and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications?
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by discharging employee Trotter and re-
fusing to reinstate him because Trotter was engaged in organizational
activity on behalf of the Union.
Trotter took a very active part in the organizational campaign of
the Union which began on February 17, 1959. He disseminated in-
formation about a union meeting to other employees, and was observed
by company officials while talking with the union organizers. Fur-
thermore Trotter frankly admitted his activities to Superintendent
Aulgur in his interview on February 20, 1959, when he informed
Aulgur that he had spoken with the union organizers and had been
shown the union contract. This interview took place in Aulgur's
office in the morning of February 20, 1959, at which time Aulgur in-
formed Trotter that "He was doing a good job." That same after-
noon, however, Aulgur called Trotter into his office and told him he
was being laid off immediately because of "economic necessity."
Aulgur's contention that this layoff was not a result of Trotter's
union activities, but was due to the request of Respondent President
Connolly directed to all plant superintendents to reduce labor costs, is
not supported by Aulgur's conduct or statements. He stated that
upon receipt of Connolly's letter on February 18, 1959, he reviewed
his operations and "Found out I was overstaffed in my shipping-room.
I reduced my force by two people and Trotter was one of them." The
other employee referred to (Peters) was transferred to the transport
department. Yet, a third employee, Baudendistiel, who did work
during the last week Trotter was employed, remained out sick for the
following 2 weeks. At this point Aulgur had his force reduced by
three employees and should have recalled Trotter, as he had promised
I The Respondent 's request for oral argument is denied as the record and the exceptions
and briefs , adequately set forth the positions of the parties.
2 As no exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent did
not violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act in sponsoring and circulating the antiunion peti-
tion, we adopt the finding pro forma.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him when he was laid off. Instead, Aulgur transferred two other em-
ployees into the department, one of whom had less seniority than
Trotter. Aulgur admitted that this employee was "extra help hired
in." Considering this conduct of Aulgur along with his antiunion
sentiments as shown by his remarks directed to various employees in-
terviewed in his office, it is clear that Aulgur merely used President
Connolly's request to reduce labor costs as a pretext to discharge the
spearhead of the union campaign.'
2. We further agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in conducting employee inter-
views and questioning employees about the Union. While the Trial
Examiner made a general finding, and did not specifically mention
what interviews constituted a violation, he did appear to hold only
three of such interviews to be a violation when he referred to three such
interviews as `being supported by credible testimony." An examina-
tion of the Intermediate Report, however, reveals that the Trial
Examiner credited the testimony of employees Jordan, Green, Trotter,
Foxx, and McGuire as they testified to seven separate interviews.
All of these interviews were very similar in nature and purpose, and
involved Aulgur's and Connolly's attempts to ascertain the respective
employee's feeling toward the Union, as well as an effort to convey to
them Aulgur's and Connolly's antiunion position. They were merely
met by a general denial on behalf of the Respondent, and there is no
reason to treat them any differently. All of these interviews were in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and we so find.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the 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, Bell Bakeries,
Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Local Union No. 361, The Amer-
ican Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union, AFL-
CIO, or in any other labor organization of their employees, by laying
them off or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment, except as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
8In the section , 2. The Respondent's violation of Section 8(a) (3), of the Intermediate
Report, the Trial Examiner states, "The fact that the Respondent was able to achieve
greater operating efficiency, which is what the figures relied on by the Respondent show,
does not necessarily establish the economic necessity for a layoff, but merely that there
was room for improvement in its operating efficiency." We find it unnecessary to adopt
this statement.
BELL BAKERIES, INC. 525
(b) Threatening their employees with reprisal if they engage in
union activities or questioning their employees as to their union
activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Local Union No. 361, The
American Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any and all such activities, except as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Tommy Trotter immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for
any loss of pay suffered as a result of his layoff in the manner set forth
in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its Fort Pierce, Florida, plant, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Re-
spondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due
and the rights of employment under the terms of this Order.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be and it is hereby dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act by sponsoring and circulating an antiunion
petition.
4In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a 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 a United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local Union No. 361,
The American Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International
Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, of our
employees by laying them off or in any other manner discrimi-
nating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment, except as
authorized by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
AVE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals if they
engage in union activities or question our employees as to their
union activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint,
or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right of self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Local
Union No. 361, The American Bakery and Confectionery Work-
ers' International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and
all such activities, except as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer to Tommy Trotter immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and we
will make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of
his layoff.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of Local Union No. 361, The Ameri-
can Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization.
BELL BAKERIES, 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.
BELL BAKERIES, INC.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
527
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before the duly designated
Trial Examiner in Fort Pierce, Florida, on July 1-10, 1959, on complaint of the
General Counsel and answer of Bell Bakeries , Inc., herein called Respondent. At
the conclusion of the testimony of the General Counsel, the Respondent moved for
dismissal of the complaint upon the grounds that the General Counsel had failed
to prove the violations alleged . Decision was reserved on this motion and it is dis-
posed of in accordance with the findings and conclusions herein. Counsel for the
General Counsel presented oral argument and counsel for Respondent and the Union
filed briefs.
The issues litigated in the proceeding were whether the Respondent 's layoff of
Tommy Trotter violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, and whether certain other acts
and conduct of the Respondent constituted interference , restraint, and coercion in
violation of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation , is a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty
Baking Company , of New York City.' The Respondent operates , among others, a
plant at Fort Pierce, Florida , where it is engaged in the production and sale of
bread and bakery products . In the course of its operations during the calendar
year 1958 , the Respondent purchased and received directly from points outside the
State of Florida , goods valued at more than $50 ,000. I find that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the assertion of jurisdic-
tion is warranted.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 361, The American Bakery and Confectionery Workers' Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The sequence of events
1. The commencement of the Union 's organizing drive
The Union represents certain production employees at the Respondent 's St. Peters-
burg, Florida , plant. The headquarters of the Union are at nearby Tampa. James
Driscoll, an employee of the Respondent 's St. Petersburg plant, was the vice presi-
dent of the Union.
In response to a request from several Fort Pierce employees that he help them
form a union , Driscoll obtained a leave of absence from the St . Petersburg plant
and came to Fort Pierce. Accompanied by Joseph DiSalvo, Driscoll looked up
Robert Aulgur, the superintendent of the Fort Pierce plant, on the day of their
arrival, Tuesday, February 17, 1959. They explained to Aulgur in his office that
day that they had been asked by Employees for help in organizing a union and that
that was their purpose in coming to Fort Pierce.
That same day Aulgur held a meeting of the supervisors at which he asked them,
as he testified , "to let this be an open minded campaign " and instructed them that
the employees were to be free to take whatever action they desired with respect to
the Union.
During the lunch hour on February 18, Driscoll had a discussion with Tommy
Trotter, one of the Fort Pierce employees, at Mom's Kitchen , a restaurant next door
to the plant. After inquiring about working conditions at the plant, Driscoll showed
Trotter the contract with the Union covering the Company 's St. Petersburg plant,
and mentioned the benefits to be derived from organizing . During the conversation
Trotter agreed to show Driscoll where the employees lived and to do everything he
could to help.
1 Liberty Baking Company is, and for some months past has been , undergoing reorgani-
zation under Section 10 of the Bankruptcy Act. However , the Respondent Itself Is not
In bankruptcy , and the bankruptcy proceedings involving its parent company do not
appear to present any issues for disposition in this case.
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon his return to the Bakery after this conversation on February 18, Trotter
talked to several employees about the advisability of having a union at the plant, men-
tioning the added benefits which he thought a union could obtain for them. That
night , February 18, Trotter met with Driscoll at his hotel room and planned a
meeting of the employees for Saturday morning, February 21. About this same
time Trotter gave Driscoll the names of the employees and showed him where they
lived. In the following days, Trotter spoke with various employees in the plant about
the meeting scheduled for Saturday morning. Among those present when Trotter
discussed the coming union meeting where James Morris, Tommy Mann, and
Richard Butz, who, as stated below, subsequently were active in circulating an anti-
union petition in the plant.
2. Superintendent Aulgur's talks with the employees
Commencing on Wednesday morning, February 18, Superintendent Aulgur sum-
moned the employees, individually and in groups, into his office. To each of the
groups he made substantially the same talk. Aulgur first said that organizers for
the Union would probably be around to talk to them and then remarked that "we
were one big happy family, we would like to keep it that way." After reminding
them that the Company paid higher wages than any bakery in the South, Aulgur
advised that they should discuss the matter thoroughly among themselves and think
the problem out. The foregoing is the testimony of Delbert McGuire, whose testi-
mony is relied on by the Respondent in its brief to the Trial Examiner.
According to Aulgur, the following occurred at the group meetings:
When the group would come in I would tell them what was taking place; that
there were a couple of organizers that would be out to organize our plant. I
named them. Jimmy Driscoll that I knew and were [sic] friendly with him.
That they would approach-he would approach them, to feel free to talk about
it, discuss it [with] him and to come in and ask questions in this office. "Feel
free to talk to one another. Don't make any quick decisions , or don't be
swayed either way until you've looked at the whole question."
While Aulgur denied mentioning any benefits at any of the group meetings, I find,
upon the basis of the testimony of Delbert McGuire which I credit, that Super-
intendent Aulgur made the additional comments set forth in the preceding paragraph.
Aulgur called a few employees into his office individually. To these employees
Aulgur made additional remarks. Among the first so summoned to Aulgur's office
was Raymond Foxx, who was called in on Wednesday morning, February 18. Ac-
cording to Foxx's testimony, which is undenied in this respect, Aulgur said to him
on this occasion, "I personally can't see where the union would help you very much
because the first thing, they charge you an initiation fee of approximately 20,
25 dollars, and they always have an assessment maybe five dollars here and ten
dollars there, which would add up into the money." Aulgur then mentioned the
fact that he had given individual employees raises in the past without causing any
hard feelings. However, if the Union got it it "would ruin the relationship between
no-between management and the employees. They have always enjoyed a good
relationship; and if the union came in, then they couldn't converse or correspond
between each other. They'd be directed through the union." 2
Willy Jordan was called into Superintendent Aulgur's office several days after the
union drive started. Aulgur asked him, so Jordan testified, which side he was on,
"the union side or the company side." Jordan told him that he was not on either
side. Aulgur also inquired which side John Horn, another employee, was on.
Jordan replied that he did not know. After further discussion, during which Aulgur
commented that he was a good worker and asked him to help him out, Aulgur told
him that he was completely free to do whatever he wanted about joining a union.
About the same time Don Green and Otis Peters were summoned to Superin-
tendent Aulgur's office. Green testified that Aulgur asked both men if they were
in favor of the Union. Both men said "No." Aulgur then asked "why we should
2 The Respondent urges that Foxx's testimony should be disregarded in Its entirety in
view of his misleading testimony With regard to not having received money from the
Union. Because of Foxx's lack of candor in this regard I have considered the question
of Foxx's credibility very carefully. On the whole, Foxx 'impressed me as generally
attempting to be precise in his testimony and to be careful not to overstate matters. He
gave sufficient factual detail to lend conviction to his testimony. His account of Aulgur's
conversation is consistent with the entire course of events in this case. Under the cir-
cumstances, I credit Foxx's testimony.
BELL BAKERIES, INC. 529
let labor come in and have those Cadillacs, stuff like that." At the same time Aulgui
told Green that the men should discuss the union question freely in the plant, that
they were free to make up their minds what to do.3
On February 20, Tommy Trotter and Bill Lundy were called into Superintendent
Aulgur's office. Trotter testified in detail concerning their conversation with Aulgur
on this occasion. Aulgur opened by saying that they "probably know there is a
couple of men trying to organize the plant ." Trotter replied , "I know it, because I
seen him the other day. The guy showed me the contract." Aulgur then went on
to review the Company 's progress in the 5 years he had been at Fort Pierce. He
mentioned how the Company had raised wages in the past 5 years, asserted that the
Company's vacation plan was better than any employer 's in the area , and reminded
them of the Respondent's policy of sharing the work during the slack summer sea-
son to avoid layoffs.
Aulgur told Lundy that he wastraining to be an operator on the wrapping ma-
chine and that he would start as an operator the following Sunday. To Trotter,
Aulgur said that he was doing a good job and that he wanted him to learn how to
set up the machine he was helping on so .that later on he could qualify as an operator.
Although Aulgur stated that they were free to join the Union and that they should
make up their minds after looking at all the facts and discussing it among themselves,
he also said, according to Trotter's testimony which I credit, that he had worked in
union shops himself and that if they had ever belonged to a union they would not
want it any more, that "if we'd get any raise at all if the Union got in, that it would
take quite a bit more than that to pay for our monthly union dues." Aulgur added
that-
we'd just be throwing our money away. We'd have to pay in the dues and men
like Jimmy Hoffa would steal our money . We'd just be paying our money so
that the bigshots could sit in the air conditioned offices, wall-to-wall carpeting,
drive big Cadillacs.
Aulgur also warned that if the Union came in the Company would abandon its
policy of sharing the work in the summer slack season , which would result in lay-
offs, and that overtime would be curtailed.4
3. The layoff of Tommy Trotter
a. The circumstances of the layoff
Shortly before Trotter finished his shift on Friday, February 20, Richard Butz,
one of the shipping clerks, informed him that that day was his last day at the plant.
When Trotter asked why, Butz stated that "they had to lay off a couple . .. they
had to cut expenses," and added that if he wanted to know anything further, to talk
to Superintendent Aulgur. Trotter went to Aulgur, explained that Butz had said he
was laid off, and inquired why. Aulgur said, "Just like he told you. We had to cut
expenses ." Trotter asked whether he would be called back. Aulgur answered
"Yes." Whereupon Trotter said, "Is my work okay?" Aulgur replied, "Yes, the
work is fine, and they'd call us back as soon as possible."
As indicated above, Trotter was laid off without notice, and was not permitted
to complete the workweek which ended on Saturday. Delbert McGuire, who was
laid off on March 15, 1959, in the course of "seasonal layoffs," was given a week's
notice.
3 Aulgur denied generally questioning any employees about the Union. Both Jordan
and Green , although called by the General Counsel , appeared reluctant to testify adversely
to the Respondent , although Jordan , who was still in the Respondent 's employ, exhibited
the greater reluctance. They impressed me as attempting to tell the truth. Undenied
testimony as to Aulgur 's comments to the men shows that he was opposed to the Union.
Questioning of Jordan and Green concerning union matters would be consistent with
such an attitude . I credit Jordan ' s and Green 's testimony related above.
4 Superintendent Aulgur specifically denied threatening that overtime would be curtailed
if the Union came in . He also generally denied making any threats of reprisals on
account of the Union However, Augur was not questioned about the remainder of
Trotter's testimony above set forth Trotter impressed me as attempting to relate in as
great detail as he could remember , and without exaggeration , Aulgur's own words in this
lengthy conversation Under all the circumstances , and in view of Aulgur's hostility to
,the Union which is revealed in the undenied portions of Trotter 's testimony , I credit
Trotter 's testimony concerning Aulgur's threats of layoffs and curtailment of overtime if
the Union came in.
554461-60-vol. 126-35
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Within 3 days after Trotter's layoff, Mary Hall, who was hired after Trotter,
was transferred from the roll packing department to the bread wrapping department
in which Trotter had been employed.5 Hall worked in this department at least 2
weeks. At the same time, Florence McGee was permanently transferred from roll
packing to breading wrapping 6
As the Respondent experiences considerable turnover of employees at its plant,7
transfers of employees from one department to another were common. General
Counsel's Exhibit No. 4-A shows that during the period beginning January 1 and
ending with February 22, 1959, seven employees (not including Mary Hall, above
referred to) were transferred from one department to another, an average of about
one transfer a week. General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4-D shows two other tempo-
rary transfers within the next 2 weeks, for 2 days and 4 days, respectively. After
Trotter's layoff, the Respondent retained in its employ in other departments seven
employees of less seniority than Trottor. This figure does not include Joe White,
who was hired for a night shift job, or Paul Weilbacker, who was lured for a split
shift 8
In the weeks immediately following Trotter's layoff, due to the amount of over-
time required to handle the work to be done, a larger percentage of the Respondent's
bread wrapping work had to be paid for at the premium rates paid for overtime 9
than would have been the case had the Respondent kept a nine-man complement of
workers in the wrapping department.is Consequently, the Respondent's payroll in
the wrapping department was actually higher after the layoff of Trotter than it
would have been had the Respondent retained a nine-man force in the wrapping
department.
Thus, General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4-C, which was prepared by the Respondent,
shows the following:
Hours Worked Bread Wrapping Department
Week ending Total hours Overtime No. of employees
2-14-59 450 96 9
2-21-59 451 113 9
2-28-59 448 128 8
3- 7-59 11 427 107 12 8
The Respondent's wage rates for the wrapping department range from $1.20 per
hour to $1.65 per hour. Under this schedule, taking the lowest figure, $1.20 per
hour, as the average hourly wage rate in the wrapping department, the Respondent's
wrapping department payroll for the week ending February 28, 1959, with eight
employees working 448 hours, including 128 hours overtime at time and a half,
amounted to at least $614.40 With nine employees, 40 hours more straight time, and
40 hours less overtime, the Respondent's payroll would have come to $590 40. In
the following week, it similarly would have been more economical for the Respond-
ent to operate the wrapping department with nine employees than eight because of
s This is shown in General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4-C, which was prepared by the
Respondent
e DicGee had considerably more seniority, on a plantwide basis, than Trotter
7 There being no reservoir of experienced bakery help in Fort Pierce, the Respondent of
necessity was forced to hire inexperienced workers and attempt to train them If it was
unsuccessful in this it had to let them go. From January 1 through February 22, 1959,
Respondent hired nine new employees. During this same period seven employees were
separated for one reason or another, including Trotter and Curren
8 About' 3 weeks after he had been hired, Trotter was transferred, to the day shift in
the wrapping department from the night shift in the bread makeup department at his
own request. The grounds for his request were that his doctor had advised him to avoid
night work because of stomach ulcers and a heart murmur condition from which he
suffered
9 The Respondent paid time and a half for overtime
10 The net result of Trotter's layoff and all the transfers that took place at the same
time was a reduction-in-force in the staff of the wrapping department of from nine to
eight
11 This figure reflects a deduction of 28 hours for "breakdown" which is otherwise
unexplained in the record The houis actually worked by employees 'assigned to this
department during this week totalled 455
19 This includes J. \Tickers, Jr, who worked 4 days 04 hours) in the wrapping depart-
ment during this week (see General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4-D)
BELL BAKERIES, INC. 531
the elimination of 40 hours of the higher-paid overtime. Thus for the week ending
March 7, using the same average hourly figure , eight employees putting in 427
hours, including 107 hours of overtime , were paid at least $576 . 60. Nine employees
putting 427 hours would have received only $552.60.
b. The Respondent 's contentions and the supporting evidence
The Respondent contends that Trotter was laid off for economic reasons and that
he was selected on a seniority basis. In support of its claim of economic necessity
the Respondent points to memorandums sent by President Conolly to all plant
managers on February 16 requesting a reduction in expenses at each plant. The
memorandum for the Fort Pierce plant , which was received by Superintendent
Robert Aulgur on February 18, contains the following longhand pencilled notation
in the margin: "Bob , Pis get into this fast. Al ." The pertinent part of the text is as
follows:
I would ask that each of you get into the act with your Production Manager
and cut expenses . 3 do not mean by this that we should jeopardize our preven-
tive maintenance programs because sound operations are based on it. I do
mean that you must renew every requisition for supplies or parts with an eye
toward economy and hold up that which is feasible.
I am confident that with effort each of you can reduce labor costs by sever,.1
men. I realize vacations are coming up but we have no choice and I need
your help. Schedule your schedules and let's save 1% variable costs overall-
it can be done with effort from each of you.
Superintendent Aulgur, who was responsible for Trotter 's discharge , testified that
after receiving the memorandum from President Conolly, he investigated and found
out that he was overstaffed in the shipping room and so he reduced his force by
two employees . Tommy Trotter was one, and the other was George Curren, whose
termination is not here involved. According to Aulgur, "Tommy Trotter had been
moved from the roll department into the shipping room just recently ; so we just
placed him with the party that was back on the machine , and Tommy was let go." 13
Later Aulgur explained,
I made my first move of the two men in the shipping room, the two newest men
in the shipping room that was on a trial period I picked up the slack with other
help in the shipping room to take over their positions.
The Company 's policy in a reduction -in-force, so Aulgur testified , is to select the
man having the lowest seniority if his ability is believed to be such that there is
little hope of training him in another capacity . In a written statement of policy
issued by the Company on January 12, 1959, the following is stated with respect to
"SENIORITY": "Prevails in cases of lay off, vacation choice and promotions.
(Management determines qualifications for promotion)." Aulgur testified that
seniority by departments , although not specifically mentioned in the statement, was
"understood ." Trotter, as Aulgur further testified, had the least seniority in the
wrapping department of any employee on the day shift . Aulgur supported his
testimony by referring to a document prepared by the Respondent which was intro-
duced into evidence by the General Counsel as General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 4-A.
This document shows that only Joe White had less seniority than Trotter in the
wrapping department at the time of his termination and that White was employed on
the night shift.14
The Respondent adduced additional evidence relating to its claim that the layoff
was motivated by economic considerations . Exhibits prepared by the Respondent
show that , comparing the week ending February 14, which was before the union
drive commenced , with the week ending March 7, which was 2 weeks after the
layoffs, in the wrapping department the gross sales for the former period were
$78,294 and the production hours were 498 (on straight -time basis , i.e., taking into
account overtime paid, but making an adjustment in the number of hours worked
to reflect the time and a half premium paid for overtime ), whereas in the latter
period the gross sales of the entire plant were $80,226 and total production hours
in the wrapping department were 481. In the shipping department the adjusted
13 Trotter was listed under "Wrapping" and Ourren under "Shipping" in a list prepared
by the Respondent and introduced into evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No 4-A.
Apparently for reduction -in-force purposes Superintendent Aulgur regarded the wrapping
department as part of the shipping room
14 For the reasons stated above , Trotter was not available for night work.
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hourly figure for the former period was 597, and 539 for the latter period , although
the gross sales figure during the latter period was the higher figure stated above.
Respondent 's Exhibit No. 2 shows that for the week ending February 21, 1959,
the week in which Trotter was laid off, the Company's total sales amounted to
$78,294 and that breaking these sales down for production man-hours , the sales
worked out at $18.30 worth of sales for each man -hour of work for the plant as a
whole. In the following weeks , as Respondent 's Exhibit No. 2 disclosed , after a
further curtailment of production staff , the sales figure per man -hours of work in
all departments increased to $19.10 for the week ending March 7 , $ 19.20 for the
week ending March 28, and $19.70 for the week ending April 4.
4. President Conolly's conversations with employees
President Al Conolly of the Respondent was in New York most of the week
the organizing activities commenced . He returned Friday evening , and the next
morning, February 21, Superintendent Aulgur brought him up to date on recent
events.
The next day Conolly called Raymond Foxx into his office.15 Conolly, according
to Foxx's undenied testimony , told him that he was very sorry that he was so
late in giving him his birthday present (his birthday was on November 27), said
he had been busy on the road . Conolly then brought up the subject of the Union,
said that "he didn't see where the union could help us very much." Conolly pointed
out that our pay rates were equal to or above those in the area. He added that the
Union could not get the employees a raise, as they had just received one, and
that the Union could not get any more out of the Company than it could afford.
Conolly then stated that "the union was draining St. Petersburg and that he was
trying to break that union up over there." When Foxx questioned whether it was
"possible," Conolly explained that "he would do it the same way they try to or-
ganize; that he'd get 51 percent of the people to sign that they didn 't want the
union and he'd take it before the National Labor Board."16
During this conversation Conolly mentioned various improvements which the
Company was planning , an automatic oven , another divider , new proof box, and an
automatic flour bin. He explained that the Company was doing these things in
an effort to get the employees away from the heat.17
About the same time , Conolly summoned Delbert McGuire to his office. As in
the case of Foxx, Conolly apologized for the Respondent 's delay in giving him a
birthday present , and explained that he had been pretty busy. Conolly then said,
according to McGuire 's testimony , "You know they're trying to get a union in
here" and asked McGuire as to his "viewpoints" on the subject . Conolly, after
remarking that "they were a plenty happy family and would like to keep it in that
category," announced that they were going to get another hopper and a proofer,
and that they were planning on pay increases and better vacations.18
5. The Respondent 's letters to the employees of February 25 and March 1
On February 25 Conolly, the Respondent's president , had mailed to its production
employees a mimeographed letter bearing his signature which discussed the "union
business ." In it Conolly, after referring to the employees ' right "to join or not
to join the union ," stated, among other things,
I will not discriminate against you nor anyone else because of union activities.
Nothing is going to change our idea of fair play and honest dealings with our
men which we have had at this plant for over 25 years and which you know
from me for the past 6 years.
1 At the invitation of Foxx, Superintendent Aulgur and Office Manager Chaney had
attended a meeting of the men on Foxx's shift 'at Foxx's house on Thursday,
February 19.
Foss apparently hoped that Aulgur would make some offer as to employee terms and
conditions of employment at this meeting , but he did not do so. The
incident, however,
made it evident to the Respondent that Foxx was active in the union movement.
10 This testimony is not denied by Conolly.
19 This testimony is not specifically denied. Conolly denied ever having promised
employees "benefits directly or indirectly , if they would not support the union."
1s I do not credit Conolly 's general denial that he questioned employees about union
matters I note that counsel for the Respondent apparently regarded McGuire as an
unbiased witness , for he commented in his brief to the Trial
Examiner that McGuire
"bore no ill will towards the company."
BELL BAKERIES, INC. 533
Then , after a discussion of the right to refrain from union membership and the
close, neighborly relationship which had previously existed in the plant , President
Conolly continued as follows:
Local 361 is dominated and controlled by Latin workers in Tampa. I can't
believe that they really have your personal well-being at heart . You would
have no active voice in that organization and you would be controlled and
dominated by it. I don 't see how that would help either you or me.
I also want to point out one fact which is sometimes overlooked. If you
bakers select a Tampa dominated union to represent you, then that union
represents all of you bakers, whether you are a member of the union or not.
In other words , the union becomes the agent and bargaining representative for
you and would stand between you and the company in bargaining with the
company and with me. The relationship between you bakers and the com-
pany has always been fair and I appreciate the fact that you have cooperated
with us. We have always been able to discuss and work out our difficulties
together . It is my personal opinion that the welfare of all of us will be best
saved by the continuation of our present relationship. Union representation
of you bakers will not benefit the business and if it cannot benefit the business
it cannot benefit the employees because you bakers can only receive out of the
business what the business can make. This matter is a matter of personal
choice by each of you individually in exercising your individual choice. I hope
you will look at both sides of the question and determine what is for your own
best interest.
You presently receive the same or higher rates of pay and have the same
or better working conditions and other benefits as bakers operating with com-
panies that have union contracts . At the same time, you are not having to pay
union dues and assessments which are $4 .00 a month . In other words, from
your own viewpoint and the viewpoint of the good of the company, I don't
see where you are going to get anything for the money you pay in dues.
On March 1 President Conolly sent another letter to the employees . After stating
that two employees had threatened employees with violence and had to be discharged,
Conolly continued as follows:
I want you to know that all of you have certain rights as I wrote you last
week. Those are real rights and you will be protected . I know you share my
belief that we all work for Dandee-and all of us that work for Dandee enjoy
a fine reputation for being outstanding citizens in our town . There is no other
group from any company in our town that enjoys a better reputation than our
group. We can destroy that reputation if we let a bunch of cubans from
Ybor City lead us into violence and threats against one another . They may
do that in Ybor City-but we are better folks and better citizens than those
Ybor City radicals. I don't want us to be associated , much less dictated to or
led by a bunch of people from a place like Ybor City. A place that has a
reputation for being the home of gangsters , racketeers , unsolved gangster killings
and the Maffia . Lets go about our business as good citizens and act and make
our decisions as good citizens.
I want to write you again in a few days to show you that your rates of pay
and benefits are higher than they are under the bakers union contracts. So you
are actually a great deal better off than the bakers in the big cities where it
costs so much more to live-and you don't have to pay union dues and be
dominated by an Ybor City union to have and enjoy all those advantages.
6. The antiunion petition
A document headed "Petition to retain a non-union shop" was circulated in the
plant prior to March 1, 1959. It bore the text "We the following undersigned
employees of the Bell Bakery of 325 ave. C, Fort Pierce, Fla. hereby petition to
keep our shop non-union." After being signed by 64 employees it was left on the
desk of President Conolly in his office at the plant. He found it there when he
returned to his office on March 1 after a trip to New York.
The petition was decided upon and circulated in the plant during the preceding
week by Richard Butz, Thomas Mann, Edward Black, Malcolm Baker, James
Morris, and possibly others. These employees, so they testified, conceived the idea
of the petition in an effort to "bring to a head" a decision regarding the Union. No
officials of the Respondent, so far as the record shows, had any part either in the
preparation or circulation of the petition.
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel's contention that the Respondent is responsible for the
circulation of the petition rests on the claim that Richard Butz, one of the circulators
of the petition and its first signer, was a supervisor in the shipping department.
Butz at the time of the circulation of the petition was an hourly paid shipping
clerk in the shipping room. At that time there were two other regular shipping
clerks on his shift and a new employee who was used part time in shipping and
trucking. Herman Aldridge was the salaried supervisor of the shipping room at
this time. As a shipping clerk, Butz' principal duty was the making up of orders,
i.e., the assembling of the bread and rolls required in the various orders. He also
checked the orders put up by the other shipping clerks on his shift. Butz also told
the loaders the order in which to load the trucks, and assigned out the trucks.
At the time of the events here involved Butz had no authority to hire or fire. As
noted above, Butz was the employee who notified Trotter that he was being laid off.
Butz recommended the hiring of three employees, two of whom were hired. It was
the policy of the Company to encourage employees to suggest good prospects for
employment as there was no pool of experienced bakery help in the Fort Pierce area
and the plant experienced considerable turnover. On April 5, 1959, Butz was pro-
moted to the position of supervisor of the shipping, assuming Herman Aldridge's
position.
On these facts I am not persuaded that Richard Butz was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act at the time of the events in question
B. Analysis and conclusions
1. The violations of Section 8(a)(1)
The complaint alleges that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by, among other things,
sponsoring and circulating an antiunion petition among its employees, and by its
president and superintendent interrogating employees concerning the union mem-
bership and sympathies of themselves and other employees.
According to the testimony of Tommy Trotter, which I have credited, Superin-
tendent Aulgur said that if the Union came in overtime would be curtailed and that
the Company would abandon its share-the-work policy during the summer slack
season, which would result in layoffs. Such threats of reprisals because of the
Union constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act and I so find.19 In my opinion, it is not of controlling significance that
Aulgur in his talk with Trotter also said that he was free to join the Union and
that he should make up his own mind. The Respondent's conduct as a whole in
this case makes it reasonable to infer that it was not sincere in its purported "assur-
ances" of a free choice with respect to the Union and that the employees upon hear-
ing of Superintendent Aulgur's threats might nevertheless reasonably conclude that
they could maintain their support of the Union only at their peril. Cf. Happ
Brothers Company, Inc., 90 NLRB 1513, 1574, reversed on other grounds, 196 F.
2d 195; Magnolia Petroleum Company v. N.L.R.B., 200 F. 2d 148, 150 (C.A. 5).
Regarding the allegations of unlawful interrogation by President Conolly and
Superintendent Aulgur, as noted above, credible testimony establishes that the
former questioned one employee concerning his "viewpoint" towards the Union,
and the latter interrogated two employees concerning the union sympathies of
themselves and other employees. This questioning cannot be viewed apart from
the background in which it occurred-the threats of reprisals make to Trotter, one
of the most active union supporters, and his subsequent unlawful discharge (infra).
In this context I find that the interrogation in which the Respondent's highest officials
engaged was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.20
19 Although the complaint did not specifically allege any threats of reprisals on the
part of Superintendent Aulgur as violations of Section 8(a)(1), I find such threats within
the scope of the general 8 (a)(1) allegations to the effect that the Respondent "interfered
with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act." In any event the issue of Superintendent Aulgur's threats was
fully litigated in the proceedings before me. N L R.B. v. Albert Armate, et al., 199 F.
2d '800, 804 (C.A. 7) ; N.L.R.B. v. Roure-DuPont Manufacturing, Inc., 199 F. 2d 631, 633
(CA 2)
20 The Respondent contends that the interrogation here was lawful under the Blue
Flash doctrine (Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591). However, the questioning
involved in that case, unlike this case, took place in a background devoid of any unlawful
interference with the Union.
BELL BAKERIES, INC. 535
As to the allegations of company sponsorship and circulation of an antiunion
petition, I conclude that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proving
that the Respondent was responsible for the activities of the group of employees who
conceived and circulated the petition. The General Counsel relies on Richard Butz
as the link to the Respondent. It is true that Butz was close to management, as is
evidenced by the fact that he was the individual who first notified Trotter of his
discharge, and the further fact that he was made a supervisor less than 2 months
later. However, I am not persuaded that Butz' activities in connection with the
petition were instigated by the Respondent or that his actions in this regard were
anything other than those of a rank-and-file employee exercising his rights under
the Act. Accordingly, I recommend the dismissal of this allegation of the complaint.
2. The Respondent's violation of Section 8(a)(3)
The essential facts relating to Trotter's layoff may be summarized as follows:
The union organizers came to town Tuesday, February 17, and the same day in-
formed Superintendent Aulgur of their plans to conduct a membership drive. The
next day, the 18th, Aulgur commenced his talks with the employees which, as shown
above, were weighted against the Union. That same day Aulgur received the
memorandum from President Conolly urging all plant managers to try to "cut
expenses" land exhorting them to "reduce labor costs by several men." On Friday
morning, February 20, Superintendent Aulgur called in Trotter and Lundy for his
talk with them. In his talk he sought to sell the men on the advantages of working
for the Respondent. He pointed out the wage raises the Respondent had given,
the freedom from layoffs enjoyed by its employees, and called their attention to the
Company's superior vacation plan. Aulgur told Trotter that he was doing good
work and that he wanted to groom him to become an operator on the machine on
which he was then acting as a helper. Although Trotter for the past 2 days had
been actively supporting the Union, talking with employees about it, meeting with
the union organizer, and helping him locate the employees' homes, I find, from the
nature of Aulgur's remarks on this occasion, that Aulgur was not then aware of
these activities and did not at that time contemplate laying off Trotter that same day.
Nevertheless, Aulgur suddenly laid Trotter off at the end of his shift that day,
without notice, and without permitting him to finish his workweek. He was told
that his work was satisfactory and that he would be called back as soon as possible,
but that the Respondent had to cut expenses. Although under the Respondent's
own policy seniority was to be observed in making layoffs,21 and transfers from one
department were a common practice, this policy was not followed in Trotter's case.
The following Monday, only 3 days after Trotter's layoff, an employee of less sen-
iority was transferred to his department. At least seven employees in other depart-
ments of less seniority than Trotter were retained when Trotter was laid off.
Various factors account for Aulgur's abrupt change of attitude towards Trotter.
For one ,thing, during his conversation with Trotter and Lundy, Aulgur had become
aware of Trotter's interest in the Union, for Trotter admitted to Aulgur on this
occasion that he had been talking to the union organizer and had been shown the
Union's contract covering the St. Petersburg plant.22 This, I find, was the first time
Aulgur acquired knowledge that Trotter was supporting the Union.
Another factor which I find contributed to Aulgur's sudden change of heart
towards Trotter, was information which Aulgur received during the day concerning
Trotter's spreading information in the plant about a union meeting scheduled for
the following morning, February 21. Among those to whom he communicated
such information were Tommy Mann, Richard Butz, and James Morris, all of whom
were opposed to the Union. The latter two were the first two signers of the anti-
union petition. Thereafter Butz talked with Aulgur, as is evident from the fact
that it was Butz who first informed Trotter of his layoff. In these circumstances,
and in view of the whole sequence of events, I infer and find that Butz or one of
the others discussed Trotter's activities on behalf of the Union with Aulgur during
that afternoon.
=The Respondent contends that its seniority policy contemplated seniority by depart-
ments. In view of the frequency with which employees were transferred from one
department to another and the amount of turnover which the Respondent experienced at
its plant, it is scarcely practicable to adhere rigidly to a system of seniority by depart-
ments. The Respondent's statement of policy with regard to seniority makes no mention
of seniority by departments. In these circumstances I do not credit Superintendent
Aulgur's testimony that seniority by departments was "understood."
as I do not credit Aulgur's denial of knowledge of Trotter's union activities.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record does not bear out the Respondent's claim that the wrapping depart-
ment was overstaffed. By using one less employee in the wrapping department, the
remaining employees in the weeks immediately after Trotter's layoff had to work a
greater percentage of overtime hours, which were paid at time and one half. The
result was, upon the basis of data furnished by the Respondent, that the Respondent's
wrapping department payroll in this period was actually higher using eight employees
and more overtime than it would have been using nine employees and less overtime.
This circumstance, I find, refutes the Respondent's contention that Trotter's layoff
was caused by the need to cut expenses.
I have considered the production figures adduced by the Respondent indicating
that after the layoff it effected a larger dollar volume of sales with fewer hours of
production work in the wrapping department, and that for the plant as a whole
the dollar value of sales per man-hours of production time during this period
increased from $18.30 worth of sales for the week ending February 21, to $19.70
for the week ending April 4. These figures, however, do not show what the cir-
cumstances were which caused President Conolly to decide that economies were
imperative. Normally an employer justifies an economic layoff by showing a
reduced demand for his products or decreasing profits on his sales. No effort was
made in this case to make any such showing. The fact that the Respondent was
able to achieve greater operating efficiency, which is what the figures relied on by
the Respondent show, does not necessarily establish the economic necessity for a
layoff, but merely that there was room for improvement in its operating efficiency.
Presumably there is always room for some such improvement. Furthermore, the
figures discussed above relating to the payroll in the wrapping department with both
eight-men and nine-men staffs establish that it would have been more economical
to operate with a nine-man staff than with a smaller staff and more overtime. In
view of all the facts of the case, I must reject the Respondent's contention that
economic considerations led to the selection of Trotter for layoff.
This leaves the question of what were the Respondent's real motives for laying
off Trotter. The Respondent's antipathy to the Union is established in the record.
President Conolly frankly admitted on the witness stand that his "position has been
that a union would be of no benefit to the workers" but that was a matter for the
workers to decide. President Conolly's two letters to the employees dated February
25 and March 1 charging the Union with being "dominated and controlled by Latin
workers in Tampa" who do not have "your personal well being at heart" clearly
indicate that he was opposed to the Union. The credited testimony as to Superin-
tendent Aulgur's talks with the employees reveals even greater hostility to the
Union. This animosity towards the Union of the Respondent's two highest officials
at the Fort Pierce plant is relevant in assessing the Respondent's motives in laying
off Trotter.
Under all the circumstances, I conclude that Superintendent Aulgur, upon being
apprised of Trotter's activities on behalf of the Union, utilized Conolly's memoran-
dum regarding a reduction-in-force as a pretext for getting rid of the spearhead of
the union movement in the plant, and that Trotter, although purportedly only laid
off temporarily, was in effect permanently terminated in violation of Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act.
N. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer Trotter immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without loss of
seniority or other rights and privileges 23 and make him whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date
of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period,
and in a manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company,
as At the hearing Trotter testified that as a result of a pinched nerve at the back of his
neck, he is subject to convulsions ; that these convulsions occur only in his sleep ; and that
by taking two kinds of medicine under a doctor's orders the convulsions were kept under
control. Trotter further testified that prior to one instance about a month before the
hearing, in which he had forgotten to take the principal medicine, he had not had a
convulsion in over a year. 'Under these circumstances, I do not believe that Trotter's
susceptibility to convulsions warrants withholding the normal reinstatement remedy in
his case.
UNITED BRASS WORKS, INC. 537
90 NLRB 289. 1 shall recommend also that the Respondent preserve and make
available to the Board or its agents , upon request, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards , personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due
under the terms of these recommendations.
Since the violations of the Act which the Respondent committed are related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commis-
sion in the future is reasonably to be anticipated from its past conduct , the preven-
tive purposes of the Act may be thwarted unless the recommendations are coexten-
sive with the threat. To effectuate the policies of the Act, therefore, it will be
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed employees by 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. Local Union No. 361, the American Bakery and Confectionery Workers' In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of employee
Tommy Trotter, thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor organ-
ization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
4. 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.]
United Brass Works, Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers Local No.
159, Sheet Metal Workers International Association , AFL-CIO
and Harry Baldwin , Robert E. York , Keneth T. Farabee,
Tommy Meyers, Buddy F. Robbins . Cases Nos. 11-CA-1430,
11-CA-1354, 11-CA-1355, 11-CA-1393, 11-CA-1393, and 11-CA-
1394. February 9, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 2, 1959 , Trial Examiner David London 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with
respect to them. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report.
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and
Jenkins].
126 NLRB No. 59.