C. C. Griffin Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 417 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

TRINITY VALLEY IRON AND STEEL COMPANY 417
also has shops and sales offices at both Orlando, and Jacksonville,
Florida. All three companies have the same set of officers, are under
the operational direction of a single general manager, have a single
administrative office and payroll staff, and a common labor policy.
These factors justify a finding that the three companies constitute a
single employer within the meaning of the Act.
In addition to the foregoing indicia of functional and organiza-
tional integration, there is frequent interchange of employees between
the three companies. During seasonal slack periods Reeves' employees
are utilized in the production operations of Florida Wholesale and
Southeastern. Florida Wholesale's employees frequently work at
Reeves' warehouse. Reeves' employees are utilized in maintaining the
grounds and equipment of Florida Wholesale and Southeastern.
Florida Wholesale employees work in Southeastern's plant during
slack periods and occasionally assist Reeves' employees in the erection
of fences. Southeastern and Florida Wholesale use a common storage
area, common watchmen, and a common foundryman. Florida Whole-
sale's truckdrivers regularly spend some of their nondriving time
working for Southeastern.
In view of the common ownerships, the high degree of functional
and organizational integration and the considerable amount of em-
ployee interchange among the three companies, we find that the two-
company unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate. Although
employees of the three companies may constitute an appropriate unit,
we are administratively advised that the Petitioner's showing of in-
terest is insufficient to warrant the direction of an election in such a
unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Trinity Valley Iron and Steel Company, a Division of C. C. Griffin
Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International Molders &
Foundry Workers Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Local
No. 9. Case No. 16-CA-1456. April 27, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 11, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel 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 filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
127 NLRB No. 61.
560940-61-vol. 127-28
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board 1 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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case,2 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 , Trinity Valley
Iron and Steel Company , a division of C. C. Griffin Manufacturing
Company, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas , its officers , agents , successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the International
Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
Local No . 9, and Lodge 1591, International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, as the jointly certified exclusive bargaining representative
of all its employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment , or other terms and conditions of
employment , by instituting changes in the terms and conditions of
employment of employees in the appropriate unit without first con-
sulting with and bargaining with the aforesaid joint bargaining repre-
sentative concerning these matters.
(b) Soliciting employees to abandon their strike, inducing employ-
ees to abandon their strike by promising them benefits , and requesting
employees to induce fellow employees to abandon their strike.
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the above -named or any other
labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[ Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
O The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied. In our opinion, the
record, the exceptions , and the brief adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties.
8In accordance with Board policy, the Trial Examiner recommended reinstatement of
the unfair labor practice strikers with backpay to begin 5 days after the date of applica-
tion for reinstatement until the date of Respondent ' s offer of reinstatement . See Tiny
Town Togs, Inc., 7 NLRB 54 . As Respondent's exceptions contain insufficient reasons
for departing from this customary remedy, we shall adopt it.
TRINITY VALLEY IRON AND STEEL COMPANY 419
a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Molders
& Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No.
9, and Lodge 1591, International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO, as the jointly certified exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit consisting of all production and
maintenance employees at the Respondent's Fort Worth, Texas, plant,
exclusive of office clerical employees, over-the-road truckdrivers,
guards, professional employees, the shipping clerk, the patternmaker,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, and embody any understanding
reached in a 'signed contract.
(b) Upon application, offer immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, to all those employees
who were on strike on and after June 30, 1959, and who have not
already been reinstated to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, dismissing if necessary any persons hired by the Respondent
on or after June 30, 1959, who were not in the Respondent's employ
on that date.
(c) Make whole the employees specified in paragraph numbered
2(b), above, for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of the
Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them in the manner provided
in paragraph numbered 2(b), above, by payment to each of them a
sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as
wages during the period from 5 days after the date on which he applies
for reinstatement to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings if any during said period.
(d) Post at its plant in Fort Worth, Texas, the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, 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 Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
4 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."
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) 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 cards and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay which
may be or become due and the rights of employment under 'the terms
of this Order.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed, insofar as it alleges that a remark by Respondent's
Office Manager Sligh to employee Milton Hill, Sr., to the effect that
the employees should have come to the Respondent before seeking the
help of the Unions, was in violation of the Act.
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 Labor Manage-
ment Relations Ac. We hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with the Interna-
tional Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local No. 9, and Lodge 1591, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the jointly certified exclusive
bargaining representative of all our employees in the appropriate
unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if an agreement is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed contract.
The appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our Fort
Worth, Texas, plant, exclusive of office clerical employees,
over-the-road truckdrivers, guards, professional employees,
the shipping clerk, the patternmaker, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally institute changes affecting the terms
and conditions of employment of employees in the appropriate
unit described above without first consulting and bargaining
with International Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 9, and Lodge 1591, International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the jointly certified
bargaining representative of our employees.
TRINITY VALLEY IRON AND STEEL COMPANY 421
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act by directly inducing them to abandon their strike,
by promising them benefits to induce them to abandon their
strike, or by requesting them to solicit their fellow employees to
abandon their strike.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, or to join or assist the above-
named or any other labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
engaging in any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
WE WILL, upon application, offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
to all our employees who were on strike on and after June 30,
1959, and who have not already been reinstated to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing if necessary
all persons hired on or after June 30,1959.
WE WILL make each such employee whole for any loss of pay
suffered by him as a result of our failure to reinstate him within
5 days after his application.
TRINITY VALLEY IRON AND STEEL COMPANY,
A DIVISION OF C. C. GRIFFIN MANUFAC-
TURING COMPANY, 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
Upon a charge and amended charges filed by International Molders & Foundry
Workers Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Local No. 9, against Trinity Valley
Iron and Steel Company, a Division of C. C. Griffin Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
herein called the Respondent , the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations
Board , herein called the Board , by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region,
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issued his complaint dated August 6, 1959, and his amended complaint dated
September 24, 1959, against the Respondent alleging that it had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and its amendment, the charge and
its amendments, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties. The
Respondent's answer to the complaint duly filed denies the allegations of unlawful
conduct therein.
A hearing was held at Fort Worth, Texas, on October 5 and on November 16,
1959, before the Trial Examiner duly designated to conduct the hearing. All parties
were represented by counsel or other representative. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to submit argu-
ment was afforded all parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. PERTINENT COMMERCE FACTS
The following commerce facts are alleged by the complaint and admitted by
the answer. C. C. Griffin Manufacturing Company, Inc., is a Texas corporation
which through its division, Trinity Valley Iron and Steel Company, operates an iron
foundry at Fort Worth, Texas. In the operation of this foundry the Respondent,
during the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, sold products vijlued
in excess of $50,000 which were shipped in interstate commerce from Fort Worth
to points outside the State of Texas. From these facts I find that the Respondent is
engaged in interstate commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction in this case over its business.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
Local No. 9, and Lodge 1591 , International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations which admit to membership employees of the Respondent. They
are herein jointly called the Unions.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Unions are and during all relevant times were the jointly certified exclusive
bargaining representative of the Respondent's production and maintenance employees.
Pursuant to the Unions' February 5, 1959, request the Respondent entered bargain-
ing negotiations and before June 8, 1959, both sides met several times without
reaching agreement. On this latter date the Unions struck in support of their
demands. After the start of the strike the parties met once again on August 10,
1959, without coming to an agreement. There have been no other meetings and the
strike still continues. The General Counsel maintains that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally granting wage increases to its
nonstriking employees during the strike; that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)( I) of the Act by offering material benefits to certain employees to induce them
to abandon the strike, and further that the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act requested an employee to solicit the abandonment of the strike by his
fellow employees. The complaint further alleges that the strike was prolonged on
or about June 13, 1959, by the commission of these unfair labor practices. The
Respondent's answer simply denies the commission of unfair conduct ascribed to
it by the complaint. The Respondent offered no testimony in its defense.
From-the uncontroverted and unimpeached testimony of the General Counsel's
witnesses, which I credit, I find that the Respondent, through its acknowledged
agents, committed the following conduct:
(1) According to striking employee Nelson Cary, Ferrell A. Butcher, identified
by Cary as his foreman but conceded by the Respondent to be its assistant foundry
superintendent, spoke to him on the street about three blocks from the plant on a
Saturday, 1 or 2 weeks after the start of the strike, and asked him to come back to
work the following Monday stating that if he did he "might get a raise."
(2) According to striking employee Johnny Allen, he and several other employees
had returned to the plant 1 week after the start of the strike to receive their last
paychecks. As Allen was handed his check by L. G. Robinson, the Respondent's
general superintendent, the latter said to him in the presence of other employees,
"Johnny, I'm going to let you come on back to work. We need you awfully bad in
TRINITY VALLEY IRON AND STEEL COMPANY 423
here." Allen replied, "I might be back Monday," whereupon Robinson remarked,
"Well come on back we are going to make time better, things will be better."
(3) According to striking employee Milton Hill, Sr., the aforementioned Ferrell
A. Butcher, whom he identiled as his foreman, spoke to him on the picket line in
front of the plant during the second or third week of the strike and said, "Why
don't you throw that old sign down and come back to work? The company gave
everybody a five percent raise starting this morning." Employee Clifford Lee
Harrington, who was also present on this occasion, corroborated Hill's testimony.
Further, according to Hill, when he received his paycheck on June 12, 1959, in the
Respondent's office, Office Manager John R. Sligh said to him that before the
employees "went on strike and got a union-they should have gotten together and
come to the company with what they wanted instead of hiring Mr. Heickman [the
Molders' International representative]."
(4) According to striking employee Ernest D. Manning, D. F. Brown, identified
by Manning as his foreman and who appears to be the H. F. Brown acknowledged by
the Respondent to be the foreman of the core department, spoke to him on the
picket line on July 1 and told him "to throw the picket sign down and come on back
to work, that they was making a right smart of changes that evening."
-(5) According to striking employee Eugene Spears, the aforementioned Butcher
under whom he worked spoke to him on the street about 3 or 4 weeks after the start
of the strike and requested him to talk to the other strikers and to get them to come
back to work.
(6) According to striking employee Alphonso Johnson, foundry Superintendent
Wallace B. Erb under whom he worked called him by telephone during the second
week of the strike and discussed with him his reasons for striking. When Johnson
revealed that one of his complaints related to the work conditions imposed by
Butcher, Erb told him to come back to work and he would "work out something."
He further stated that Mr. Griffin, identified by Johnson as the owner of the plant,
would give him "better satisfaction inside than outside because he is kind of hard-
boiled." Johnson further related that while picketing in front of the plant during
the third week of the strike John E. Hardin, foreman of the maintenance department,
asked him to return to work and informed him the Respondent was granting a 5-
percent raise the following Monday. When Johnson advised he would not return,
Hardin again told him "to be sure to come back Monday to go to work," and added
"if I hear anymore about this it's a damn lie." Johnson testified this last comment
was meaningless to him.
(7) The Respondent's payroll data in evidence reveals that in the June 27, 1959,
pay period a wage increase of approximately 5 percent was given by the Respondent
to numerous employees who had remained at work during the strike. According to
the credited testimony of International Representative Heickman, who had been the
spokesman for the Unions during the contract negotiations, there had been no agree-
ment between the Respondent and the Unions concerning wages during the meetings
preceding the strike or at the one meeting on August 10, 1959, during the strike.
The Respondent's initial position on wages as shown by a handwritten statement from
Attorney John Price, the Respondent's spokesman during the negotiations, was to
continue the rates existing at the start of negotiations. The Respondent later pro-
posed a 5-cent hourly increase provided the Unions accepted a 5-year contract with-
out a wage reopening clause, and in the alternative offered a 1-year contract without
any wage increase. Neither alternative was accepted by the Unions. At one point
the Unions suggested a 1-year contract with a 5-cent hourly increase but this proposal
was rejected. At another point the Unions requested a 10- or 15-cent across-the-
board increase in hourly rates which apparently was also rejected. At the June 4
meeting, the last before the strike, Heickman brought up for discussion the foregoing
alternatives previously proposed by the Respondent. At that time Attorney Price
presented him a document entitled "Apprentice Program" which included a starting
and top wage for five classifications with provisions for a 21/2 -cent advancement in
the hourly rate every 3 months until top is reached with advancement "contingent
on worker's ability " Heickman observed that the maximum rates for these classi-
fications were lower than those already in effect. At this meeting the Respondent
unexpectedly added a set of working rules to the negotiations and this prompted
Heickman to comment that the negotiations were deteriorating. At this point the
Respondent's negotiators left the meeting. At the August 10 meeting Heickman
asked the Respondent to offer the same wage increase which according to his in-
formation had been granted to nonstrikers, and was told by Price the Respondent
would give nothing which cost it money. Heickman testified also that Price responded
that he would not discuss wages because "it was now in the hands of the Courts and
it was for them to decide as to what the wage rate was going to be." At this same
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting Heickman asked Price for additional wage data to reflect the wage rates then
being paid. Heickman received certain data by mail about September 1, 1959, which
listed the rates then in effect for the Respondent's employees without identifying
them by name. The only information provided by this data to show the rates paid
specific employees was a listing of clock numbers opposite the rates and classifications.
Notwithstanding the obscurity of this data comparison with the job classifications
shown on wage data furnished by the Respondent before the strike permitted Heick-
man reasonably to determine from it that the Respondent had during the strike
granted wage increases. This determination was consistent with the reports of such
unilateral conduct which Heickman had received before then from striking employees.
The appeals by the Respondent through its admitted agents to employees to
abandon the strike being waged by their Unions and to return to work, especially
when coupled with direct or clearly implied promises of benefit, constituted unlawful
interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.' The Respondent by the following conduct of
its agents violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act:
1. Assistant Foundry Superintendent Butcher's request to employee Nelson Cary
to return to work coupled with the implied promise of a raise;
2. General Superintendent Robinson's request to employee Johnny Allen in the
presence of other employees to return to work coupled with an implied promise of
benefits;
3. Butcher's request to employee Milton Hill, Sr., in the presence of another strik-
ing employee, to stop picketing and return to work coupled with the implication that
he would receive the 5-percent raise which the Respondent had just granted its
employees;
4. Foreman H. F. Brown's request to employee Ernest D. Manning to stop picket-
ing and return to work coupled with an implied promise of benefits;
5. Butcher's request to employee Eugene Spears to solicit the return to work of
fellow strikers;
6. Foundry Superintendent Wallace B. Erb's request to employee Alphonso John-
son to return to work coupled with a promise of benefits; and
7. Foreman John E. Hardin's request to employee Alphonse, Johnson to return
to work coupled with his assertion that the Respondent was about to grant a 5-percent
raise.
I do not consider the remark by Office Manager Sligh to employee Milton Hill, Sr.,
to the effect that the employees should have come to the Respondent before seeking
the help of the Unions as unlawful. I regard this as a noncoercive privileged ex-
pression and recommend the dismissal of the complaint allegation that it was viola-
tive of the Act.
The grant of the wage increase to nonstriking employees during the June 27, 1959,
pay period was in derogation of the Respondent's statutory obligation to refrain from
altering the terms and conditions of employment of its employees without notice to
and opportunity for consultation with their certified bargaining representative. The
record shows that at no time during their negotiations had the Respondent and the
Unions proposed or discussed an increase in wage rates such as that shown to have
been instituted by the Respondent, and no explanation was offered by the Respondent
in this proceeding to justify this unilateral action taken without any notice to the
Unions. By this conduct the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
All the foregoing actions by the Respondent constitute a pattern of conduct de-
signed to undermine the representative status of the Unions and to break the strike.
The Respondent must reasonably have expected that the news of its illegal actions
conducted by direct and open solicitation of strikers accompanied by promises of
pay increases would inevitably reach the Unions, as indeed it did. The Respondent
must also reasonably have understood that the Unions confronted by these circum-
stances to save face with the employees on strike and to preserve their representative
status would have to insist that they receive in any settlement with the Respondent
no less than those benefits freely conferred by the Respondent on other employees
who had not joined the strike. It is unrealistic to expect that a labor organization
in these circumstances would take less for employees supporting its strike. While
it is uncertain when or on what terms the parties might have resolved their differences,
essentially over wages, and have reached on agreement terminating the strike had
the Respondent not engaged in its misconduct, it is clear that after commission of
the aforesaid unlawful conduct the Respondent created a situation in which the strike
could not be ended short of an agreement granting strikers the same wage increases
1 Clinton Foods, Inc, 112 NLRB 239.
TRINITY VALLEY IRON AND STEEL COMPANY 425
unilaterally conferred by the Respondent on nonstrikers. This, obviously, the Re-
spondent had not intended doing. No such offer had ever been made to the Unions
during the negotiations, and when on August 10, 1959, the Unions asked that the
increases be extended to strikers they were flatly turned down. Even more, the
Respondent sought to obscure its actions by withholding the meaningful pay data
requested by the Unions thus emphasizing the futility of the Unions' effort to secure
the increase for strikers. Necessarily, the Respondent by its deliberate unlawful
conduct aggravated its differences with the Unions and created a new and serious
impediment to settlement of the strike with the net result that the strike, economic
in origin, was, as alleged in the complaint, prolonged and consequently converted into
an unfair labor practice strike. The record shows that the Respondent's misconduct
was committed substantially within 3 weeks after the strike started on June 8, 1959.
I therefore find that the strike was converted into an unfair labor practice strike on
or before June 30, 1959.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it shall be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As the
Respondent on June 27, 1959, and at all times thereafter has refused to bargain
collectively with the Unions as the certified representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit with the good faith required by the Act, it will be recommended
that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Unions, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
It has also been found that the strike by the Respondent's employees which was
in progress at the time of the hearing was prolonged by the Respondent's unfair
labor practices and thereby on June 30, 1959, was converted to an unfair labor
practice strike. Employees who were on strike on that date and thereafter thus
became unfair labor practice strikers who were entitled to reinstatement upon
application irrespective of whether their positions have been filled by the Respond-
ent's hire of other employees as replacements for them. Accordingly, in order to
restore the status quo as it existed prior to conversion of the strike on June 30, 1959,
and thereby to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent shall, upon application, offer reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, to all their employees who were on strike on and after June 30, 1959,
dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired after that date. It is also recommended
that the Respondent be ordered to make whole those employees who were on strike
on and after June 30, 1959, for any loss of pay they may have suffered or may suffer
by reason of the Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them, by payment to
each of them a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages during the period from 5 days after the date on which he applied for
reinstatement , to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement. Loss of pay
shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolivorth Company, 90 NLRB 289; N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Com-
pany of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission
of similar and other unfair labor practices may reasonably be anticipated. I shall
therefore recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in
any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed its employees by 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. Trinity Valley Iron and Steel Company, a Division of C. C Griffin Manu-
facturing Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. International Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
Local No. 9, and Lodge 1591, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid labor organizations were during the Respondent's payroll period
ending June 27, 1959, and have at all times thereafter been the jointly certified
exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act in the
following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Fort Worth, Texas,
plant, exclusive of office clerical employees, over-the-road truckdrivers, guards,
professional employees, the shipping clerk, the patternmaker, and supervisory
employees as defined in the Act.
4. By failing and refusing at all times since the unilateral grant of a pay increase
to nonstriking employees during its June 27, 1959, payroll period to bargain col-
lectively with the aforesaid labor organization as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the foregoing appropriate unit the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
5. By directly soliciting the abandonment of their strike by its employees, by
inducing them to abandon their strike by promises of benefit, and by requesting an
employee to solicit the abandonment of the strike by his fellow employees the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Kit Manufacturing Company and United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO and Blue Mountain District Council , Lumber &
Sawmill Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 19-CA-1742,19-CA-
1766, and 19-CA-1816. April 27, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 6, 1960, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett 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
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint . Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three -member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
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 brief , and the entire record in this
127 NLRB No. 62.