Burke Oldsmobile, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 79 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

BURKE OLDSMOBILE, INC. 79
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Burke Oldsmobile , Inc. and Local 259, United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
AFL-CIO and Local 868, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Party to the Contract. Case No. O-CA-6285. July 18, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 22, 1960, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan 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. Thereafter, the Respondent and
Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America filed exceptions and a joint
brief in support thereof.
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean , and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this 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, Burke Oldsmo-
bile, Inc., New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
'We adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding that at the employee meeting in March 1958,
27 employees signed new authorization cards for Local 259 , United Automobile , Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO. Although these cards
were not offered Into evidence witnesses Ireland and O'Connell further testified that these
cards were not available at the hearing as they were lost, together with other records of
the Local , in the summer of 1958 during a change of administration in the Union.
128 NLRB No. 12.
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Assisting or contributing support to Local 868, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, or to any other labor organization.
(b) Recognizing the above-named labor organization, or any
successor thereto, as the representative of its employees for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with respect to wages, rates of pay,,
hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment,
unless and until such labor organization shall have been duly certified
by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representa-
tive of the said employees.
(c) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated
November 4,1958, between the Respondent and the above-named labor
organization, or to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof,
unless and until the said labor organization shall have been duly certi-
fied by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the Respondent's employees; Provided, however, That
nothing in this Decision and Order shall require the Respondent to^
vary or abandon those wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive
features of its relations with its employees, established in performance-
of any such agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of
any rights they may have thereunder.
(d) Encouraging membership in Local 868, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or in any other labor organization, by conditioning the
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment upon
membership in, affiliation with, or dues payments to, such labor or-
ganization, except as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as.
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-determination, to form-
labor organizations, to join or assist Local 259, United Automobile,,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection as guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment 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 :
BURKE OLDSMOBILE, INC. 81
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 868, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of Respondent's
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining unless and until
said labor organization has been duly certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees.
(b) Reimburse its employees and former employees the dues, fees,
and assessments and any other moneys illegally exacted from them and
paid to Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America in the manner and to
the extent set forth in "The Remedy " section of the Intermediate
Report.
(c) Preserve , and upon request , make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records, timecards,
social-security payment records, personnel records, and all other
records necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay dues,
fees, and assessments due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in New York, New York, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative , be posted by it
immediately upon the receipt thereof and maintained by it for 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 these notices are not
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
2 In 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 the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NONCE 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 assist or contribute support to Local 868, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America , or to any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT recognize the above -named labor organization,
or any other successor thereto, as the representative of our em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wages, rates of pay , hours of employment, or other terms and
conditions of employment , unless and until such labor organiza-
tion shall have been duly certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board as the exclusive representative of the said employees-
WE WILL NOT give effect to our collective -bargaining agreement
dated November 4, 1958, with the above -named labor organiza-
tion , or to any extension , renewal , or modification thereof, unless
and until the said labor organization shall have been duly certi-
fied by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive repre-
sentative of our employees ; however, we are not required to vary
or abandon those wage , hour, seniority , or other substantive fea-
tures of our relations with our employees , established in perform-
ance of any such agreement , or to prejudice the assertion by
employees of any rights they may have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 868 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization , by con-
ditioning the tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment upon membership in, affiliation with, or dues pay-
ments to, such labor organization , except as authorized by Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-determi-
nation, to form labor organizations , to join or assist Local 259,
United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America , UAW, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, and to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local
868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America as the exclusive representative
of our employees for the purposes of collective bargaining unless
and until said labor organization has been duly certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative
of our employees.
WE WILL reimburse our employees and former employees the
dues, fees, and assessments and any other moneys illegally ex-
BURKE OLDSMOBILE, INC. 83
acted from them and paid to Local 868, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America.
BURKE OLDSMOBILE, 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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard by Trial Examiner W.
Gerard Ryan in New York City on August 4, 5, 6, and 7, 1959, in which the issues
litigated were whether Burke Oldsmobile, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Em-
ployer, violated Section 8(a)(1)(2), and (3) of the Act. The motion by Local 868
to reopen the hearing for the purpose of offering testimony concerning the word
"effective" as applied to the effective date of the collective-bargaining agreement is
hereby denied. The contract provides that its effective date be October 14, 1958,
and the parties stipulated during the hearing that the contract was signed on November
4, 1958, and was retroactive to October 14, 1958.
At the close of the hearing the parties participated in oral argument. Local 868
filed a brief. Motions to dismiss, upon which decision was reserved, are disposed
of in accordance with the findings and conclusions herein set forth.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, Burke Oldsmobile, Inc., is a New York corporation maintaining
its principal office and place of business at 1710 Broadway in the city and State of
New York, and a plant at 320 West 70th Street, in the city and State of New York,
herein called the Burke plant, where it is now and has been continuously engaged
at said place of business and plant, in the business of selling, servicing, and repairing
new and used automobiles, automobile parts and accessories, and related products.
During the year prior to the hearing, the Employer caused to be sold and distributed
automobiles, automobile parts and accessories, and related products, and performed
services valued at approximately $12,000,000. In the same year automobiles and
automobile parts valued in excess of $500,000 were shipped to the Employer from
points outside New York State. I find the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and that assertion of jurisdiction is warranted.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 259, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Local 259, and Local 868, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein referred to as Local 868, are labor organizations within the meaning
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended at the hearing
in substance alleged that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the
Act by rendering assistance and support to Local 868 while a question of representa-
tion existed concerning a unit of employees engaged in the service and repairing of
automobiles and related products at the Burke plant (excluding office and clerical
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act) and by recognizing and entering
into a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 868, notwithstanding that at the
time thereof Local 259 claimed to represent said unit, and that said collective-
bargaining agreement contained the following provision which has been maintained
in effect and enforced retroactively to October 14, 1958:
•84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As a condition of employment all employees covered by this Agreement shall,
thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Agreement, or in the case of new
employees, thirty (30) days after the date of hiring, become new members of the
Union nad remain in good standing in the Union during the term of this
Agreement.
The amended complaint further alleged that since October 14, 1958, said employees
have paid dues and initiation fees pursuant to the terms of the contract and that the
Employer is liable for the reimbursement of said dues and initiation fees.
In 1953, pursuant to a Board-conducted election, the Employer and Local 259
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement which expired in 1955.1 From 1955
until November 4, 1958, the date when the contract with Local 868 was signed, the
Employer had no collective-bargaining agreements with any union with respect to
the employees herein concerned.
After the contract expired in 1955, thus ending any contractual relationship with
Local 259, the record does not show that any other union obtained any members in
the unit prior to September 30, 1958. Local 259 always had considered that it
represented the employees.
In March 1958, representatives of Local 259 met with the employees and 27
membership cards were obtained so that the representatives would be able to show
them if called upon to demonstrate that Local 259 was still the representative. It
was on this basis of at least 27 members that Local 259 based its claim on September
24, 1958, to majority representative. The size of the unit for the week ending
October 14, 1958, was stipulated to be 41 employees.
In March 1958, William Burke, president of the Employer, met with representatives
of Local 259 and discussed matters of working conditions, benefits, etc. Thus Burke
knew of the continuing interest of Local 259 from 1955 in representing the employees.
Burke testified that he knew that Local 259 and Local 868 were engaged in organ-
izational activities in September and October 1958.
Employee Joseph Heggi, when called as a witness for the General Counsel, testified
that on October 2, 1958, he asked Service Manager Charles Kanka for permission
to hold a meeting of the employees during coffee-break time on the morning of
October 3. Kanka granted the permission. Heggi then invited Leonard Shifrin, an
organizer for Local 868, to be present at the meeting. Shifrin attended and accord-
ing to Shifrin's testimony he had not obtained permission from Kanka to be there.
Heggi testified that he did not inform Kanka that Shifrin would be there. At the
meeting Heggi, who testified he (Heggi) had been elected head of a committee of
employees, handed Shifrin the contract demands of the employees. During the
meeting, Frank Lo Cascio, the business representative and financial secretary of
Local 259, accompanied by Michael O'Connell, the international representative for
UAW, appeared on the scene. Like Shifrin, neither Lo Cascio nor O'Connell had
received permission to attend. The evidence is in dispute as to what happened then.
Lo Cascio testified that Kanka and Rupolo asked them to leave and they did leave
the third floor where the meeting was held. Lo Cascio testified that when they left,
Shifrin was still on the third floor with the employees. O'Connell testified that he
could not recall whether Shifrin was still there when they left. All witnesses are
agreed that two policemen appeared. Shifrin testified that Kanka and Rupolo
appeared with two policemen. Lo Cascio and O'Connell testified that they did not
see the policemen until they had left the third floor. Kanka and Rupolo did not
testify. Burke testified that a printed sign denied permission to anyone to go above
the first floor without permission and that when Kanka notified him on October 3
that representatives of Local 259 and Local 868 were present and he feared there
might be a fight, Burke instructed him to call the police and have them put out.
To me it appears clear that Shifrin did not have any permission from the Employer
to be present at a meeting of the employees on October 3, and I accordingly find
the evidence insufficient to sustain the allegation in paragraph 10 of the complaint
that since on or about October 2, 1958, the Employer has granted free access to the
plant to the representatives of Local 868 to talk to the employees during working
hours and has denied the same to representatives of Local 259. The complaint to
that extent should be dismissed
On September 24, 1958, Local 259 mailed to the Employer a request for recognition
claiming that it represented a majority of the employees. The letter read:
This letter is a follow up to the meeting we held September 23, 1958 with
your Mr. Phillip Weinstein?
1 Case No 2-CA-2364
2 Weinstein is controller of the Employer.
BURKE OLDSMOBILE, INC. 85
At this meeting, we informed Mr. Weinstein that we represented the majority
of employees at Burke Oldsmobile and was interested in discussing Union
recognition. We also informed him to retain the status quo in the shop until
such time as we could sit down and negotiate a contract covering wages, hours
of work and other conditions of employment, for the employees in your place
of business.
We, as the bargaining representative for your employees, would like to
sit down as soon as possible and discuss the above with you.
We would appreciate a prompt reply to our request.
At no time did the Employer ever reply to the letter of September 24, 1958, in
which Local 259 claimed to be majority representative and at no time did the
Employer call upon Local 259 to submit any proof of its majority claim. Nor at
any time did the Employer answer any of the telephonic or other oral requests from
Local 259 for meetings subsequent to September 24, 1958.
On or about and also subsequent to October 2, 1958, Local 868 met with the
Employer and requested recognition. The Employer's answer admits that Local 868
demanded recognition on or about October 2, 1958. William Burke replied in
substance that he would look into it. Subsequent to the demand for recognition by
Local 868, Burke called a meeting of the employees on company time. In addition
to Burke, two supervisors, Kanka, the service manager, and Rupolo, the assistant
service manager, were present during the meeting. Representatives of Local 868 or
Local 259 did not attend the meeting. Burke stated to the employees, in substance,
that it was their privilege to be represented by a union or by no union and that if they
chose a union he would abide by their choice. The employees voted by a showing
of hands. Joseph Heggi, a witness called by General Counsel and also called later
by Local 868, testified that he was present at the meeting and that the entire 41
employees voted unanimously for Local 868 as their representative. Thereafter,
representatives of Local 868 sought and obtained a meeting with Burke, exhibited
membership cards to him which Burke examined and compared signatures thereon
with his social-security forms. Burke then recognized Local 868 as bargaining
representative. Negotiations for a contract extended from on or about October 14
to November 4, 1958, when a contract was signed containing the union-security
clause above referred to and provisions for the payment of initiation fees and dues
by voluntary checkoff authorizations. The effective date of the contract was agreed
therein to be October 14, 1958.
Thus, in contrast to the Employer's treatment of Local 259, Burke made appoint-
ments with representatives of Local 868 to discuss that Local's claim to represent a
majority and Burke requested Local 868 to prove its claim to be representative of
the majority. a 1
This record shows nothing to indicate any knowledge on the part of Local 259
that it knew or had any reason to believe that Burke was meeting with representatives
of Local 868, considering its claims, or recognizing it, after examination of member-
ship cards and, finally, negotiating for and entering into the collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 868.
Conclusions
The questions presented are whether the Employer, faced with conflicting claims
of rival unions to represent its employees for purposes of collective bargaining,
violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing one of them as the
representative of the employees in the absence of a Board-conducted election; and
whether the collective-bargaining agreement arrived at is in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
Local 868 contends that Local 259 did not have any substantial claim to represent
the employees; that the claim of Local 259 was an "absolute fraud"; and that since
Local 868 had made a clear showing of representation the Employer was bound to
accord recognition to Local 868.
The Board has held that an employer, faced with conflicting claims of rival unions
to represent his employees for purposes of collective bargaining, violates Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act if he recognizes one of them without waiting for the
Board to resolve the rival claims under the procedures of the Act. Cleaver Brooks
Mfg. Corporation, 120 NLRB 1135; order set aside 264 F. 2d 637; cert. denied
October 12, 1959. An employer who disregards this obligation and prematurely
recognizes one of the rival unions interferes with the employees' statutory freedom
to select a bargaining representative of their own choosing in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and accords illegal support to the favored union in violation of Section
8(a)(2). The Hoover Company v. N.LR.B., 191 F. 2d 380, 385-386 (C.A. 6);
577684-61-vol 128-7
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ohio Ferro-Alloys Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 213 F. 2d 646, 650 (C.A. 6); N.L.R.B.
v. Electronics Equipment Co., Inc., 194 F. 2d 650, 652 (C.A. 2); 205 F. 2d 296.
In March 1958, Local 259 had obtained 27 membership cards. There is nothing
in the record to support any inference that by September 24, 1958, when Local 259
requested recognition, Local 259 had lost all or any such memberships. Both Local
868 and Local 259 were engaged in organizational activities in September and
October 1958. Local 868 did not secure its first two membership cards until Sep-
tember 30, 1958-almost a week subsequent to the written request of Local 259 for
recognition on September 24, 1958. While the Employer demanded proof from
Local 868, after it had received the letter requesting recognition from Local 259,
that it represented a majority of the employees, it failed to give to Local 259 any
such opportunity to substantiate its claim. It is one thing to give an opportunity to
demonstrate whether a claim is substantial but quite another to deny to one local
any oppotunity to demonstrate whether it has a substantial claim. The fact remains
that on September 24, 1958, when Local 259 made its written request and repre-
sentation that it represented a majority, Local 868 had not then obtained any
memberships.
Following the oral request of Local 868 for recognition, the Employer undertook
to resolve the question by conducting an election on company time in the presence
of its president, William Burke, and two supervisors, Kanka, the service manager,
and Rupolo, the assistant service manager, at which election the employees voted
by a showing of hands. The Employer determined thereafter, based upon examina-
tion of the cards given to him by representatives of Local 868, that Local 868 was
the majority representative. Where, in the absence of a Board determination of
the representative status of competing unions, claims rest upon such evidence as
authorization or membership cards or other informal indicia of support, it has been
held by the Board that such indicia "are a notoriously unreliable method of deter-
mining majority status of a union." Sunbeam Corporation, 99 NLRB 546, 550. In
Midwest Piping, 63 NLRB 1060, 1070, the Board stated:
it is well known that membership cards obtained during the heat of
rival organizing campaigns . . . do not necessarily reflect the ultimate choice
of a bargaining representative; indeed, the extent of dual membership among
the employees during periods of intense organizing activity is an important
unknown factor affecting a determination of majority status, which can best
be resolved by a secret ballot among the employees.
It is of no consequence that no petition for representation had been filed by one
of the rival unions for such a petition is not an indispensable prerequisite to the
existence of a question concerning representation. It is the underlying factual
situation which controls the question whether recognition of a union by an employer
in the circumstances of any given case violates the duty of neutrality. In Harrison
Sheet Steel Company v. N.L.R.B., 194 F. 2d 407, 409-410 (C.A. 7), the court held
that an employer breached his neutrality in violation of law by recognizing one of
several rival unions, even though no petition for certification was pending at the
time.3
The union-security agreement between the Employer and Local 868 was invalid
on its face, since having been signed on November 4, 1958, it was made effective on
October 14, 1958, thereby not conforming with the requirement of the proviso to
Section 8(a)(3) that employees need not become union members until 30 days after
hire. Furthermore, any agreement which conditions employment on union member-
ship is violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act where, as here, it is made with a
union which has been unlawfully assisted by the employer.
Accordingly, I conclude that by recognizing and entering into a collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 868 at a time when Local 259 was also claiming
to represent the majority of the employees, the Employer thereby rendered assistance
and support to Local 868 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and
by entering into and enforcing a contract containing an illegal umon-security clause,
the Employer has thereby violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Employer, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the Employer's operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
3 To the same effect is Elastic Stop Nut Corporation v. N L R B , 142 F. 2d 371 (C.A. 8),
cert. denied 323 U S. 722.
ALLIS-CHALMERS MFG. CO.-PITTSBURGH WORKS 87
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Employer has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
which will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that the Employer unlawfully assisted and rendered support to
Local 868 in violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act and further that the Employer
violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by executing, maintaining, and enforcing
an agreement containing unlawful union-security provisions, I shall recommend
that the Employer cease giving effect to the agreement signed on November 4, 1958,
retroactive to October 14, 1958, and all subsequent agreements with Local 868,
unless and until that Union shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority repre-
sentative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the employees of
the Employer. Nothing in this recommendation should be taken, however, to
require the Employer to vary those wage, hour, and other substantive features of its
relations with the employees themselves, if any, which the latter has established in
the performance of this agreement.
I shall further recommend that the Employer reimburse its employees and former
employees in the full amount of any dues or other moneys collected from them
under the Employer's aforesaid agreement with Local 868.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, I shall also recom-
mend that the Employer cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce and the Unions are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
2. By contributing assistance and support to Local 868, the Employer has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating with respect to terms and conditions of employment, the
Employer has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (3) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct, the Employer has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company-Pittsburgh Works and
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local 107,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC-2568. July 18, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert Schutzman, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
128 NLRB No. 15.