City Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 844 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
City Electric Company and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 278 , AFL-CIO. Case 23-CA-2400.
May 22, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On January 25, 1967, Trial Examiner
Eugene E. Dixon issued his Decision in the above-
entitled case, 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent , City Electric
Company, Victoria , Texas, its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE E. DIXON, Trial Examiner: This proceeding,
brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the
Act, was heard at Victoria, Texas, on September 21 and
22, 1966. The complaint dated July 8, 1966, based upon
charges filed and served on May 27, 1966, was issued by
the Regional Director for Region 23 (Houston, Texas) on
behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel and
the Board). The complaint alleged that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices by
various specified conduct, including its failure to bargain
in good faith with International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union 278, AFL-CIO (herein called the
Union), as the bargaining agent of a majority of its
employees in an appropriate unit and by discriminatorily
discharging two employees, thus violating Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the Act. In its duly filed answer Respondent
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
At all times material herein Respondent has been a
corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of
the laws of the State of Texas, having its principal office
and place of business in Victoria, Texas, where it is
engaged in the business of electrical contracting. During
the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, purchased goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 from various enterprises located in the
State of Texas, which enterprises had received the same
goods and materials directly from States other than the
State of Texas. Respondent at all times material herein
has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 278, AFL-CIO, at all times material herein has
been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Because the various allegations of violations of the Act
are all so interrelated, I shall not treat the evidence under
separate subject headings but will set forth the facts in
essentially chronological order and will then by subject
matter dispose of the contentions and concluding findings.
In early December 1965 John M. Woods, age 20, talked
to Respondent President Herbert Meyer about working for
Respondent. In this conversation Woods disclosed that he
was currently working for a contractor by the name of
Marshall and that he was running a job for Marshall at the
Patti Wilder Junior High School. Meyer asked how soon
Woods could come to work. Woods replied that he could
report as soon as he finished the school job. Meyer also
asked Woods if he had a license.' Woods replied that he
did not but that his application was in and that he would
have a license before he came to work.
On January 16, 1966, Woods began working for
Respondent as a journeyman electrician, having received
his license in the meantime. From the time he was hired to
May 23 (the day he was discharged) Respondent hired four
people in the unit-three of them electricians helpers
(among whom was James Garland, an alleged
discriminatee) and one journeyman. After his discharge
Respondent also hired two employees.
Woods' starting rate was $2.25 an hour. Sometime
around March 1, he received an increase of 25 cents an
hour. This increase was granted on Meyer's own volition
when he learned that Woods had been offered more money
' The license in question is a municipal license conferring the
status of journeyman on an applicant after he has completed a 3-
year apprenticeship and passed an examination
164 NLRB No. 116
CITY ELECTRIC CO. 845
by a competitor. Prior to receiving the increase, Woods
had not "actually run jobs" for Respondent. After he got
the raise, according to Woods' cross-examination, he
worked on jobs more by himself than he had worked
before.
About the time or somewhat prior to the time that
Woods received his wage increase, there had been general
discussions among the employees about the Union's
attempt to organize various contractors in the Victoria
area. Woods discussed with other employees the
possibility of organizing Respondent's shop. In the first
week of March, Woods had an initial and apparently
lengthy telephone conversation with John Delane, the
Union's assistant business agent. They talked about union
benefits, working conditions, and wages and about
organizing Respondent's employees. Two or three weeks
later, Woods met with DeLane about the same subject at
the latter's home and apparently took some union
application cards with him when he left. Thereafter
Woods, along with his helper James L. Garland, talked
about the Union to various employees in groups of two or
three, and Woods in effect became an "inside the
Company organizer" for the Union.
According to Woods' undenied and credited testimony,
in mid-April before work one morning he came upon
Meyer and employee Bankhead as they were engaged in a
conversation about unions. Bankhead indicated that he
might sign a union card. When Meyer gave an example of
how union membership had presumably been a
disadvantage to some employees engaged in a strike,
Bankhead said that if he found that he did not like the
Union, he "could just quit." Meyer retorted that "by that
time . . . he would . have himself messed up with
everyone in town" and would not be able to get a job.
According to Woods' further credited testimony, on
another occasion during the first part of May, Jack Meyer,
an employee and the brother of President Herbert Meyer,
asked his brother if he had gone union yet. Herbert replied
that he had not. Woods looked up from some blueprints he
was studying and Herbert Meyer asked Woods if he "had
signed a union card yet." Woods said that he had not and
Meyer replied, "Well, if I was you, I wouldn't sign a card
because it would cause a lot of trouble for you."
According to the undenied and credited testimony of
employee Elton L. Bues, about a week after he signed a
union card (which was on April 27,1966), he had come into
the shop to see Meyer about something. At this time,
Meyer asked him if the union men had come by to talk to
him. Meyer told Bues that if he "had thought of signing a
S About the middle of May DeLane and Business Agent Tucker
called on Meyer When Meyer learned from the office girl that the
two men who wanted to see him were from the Union, he refused
to see them
S About this incident DeLane testified as follows
I walked in the front office There was no one in the office
at the time And Mr Meyer's office was open I stood in the
door I saw he was on the telephone I raised my hand to say
"Hi"
He said, i will be with you in a minute
I went back in the front office, sat on the couch, and a
while later , when he finished his telephone conversation, he
came in and said , "What can I do for you?"
And I said, "I came to set a date where we could
negotiate ," that we represented 80 per cent of his employees
and he said , "You do know [ sic] such of a thing . Now, get out
of here. I am going to throw you out "
He ran to the door He opened the door Came over to the
couch , grabbed me by both shoulders I stood up And we
scuffled , and I pushed clear Jack Meyer came from the back
union card, he would rather [ Bues] quit before [he]
caused any trouble." He further told Bues to watch his
step and not to "get into any deep water." Jack Meyer was
present at this time.
On April 27 the Union had written a letter requesting
recognition by Respondent as the duly designated
collective-bargaining agent of Respondent's employees-
of which more later. From that time to May 20, DeLane had
been unsuccessful in his attempts to see Meyer. On
May 19, DeLane had told Woods about his difficulty in
seeing Meyer, claiming that Meyer kept "putting him
off."2 Woods suggested that DeLane go to the shop at noon
to see Meyer when the employees usually came in from
their jobs, explaining that he "didn't think Mr. Meyer
would make a scene" under those circumstances.
The following day, Woods and his helper, Garland, went
to the shop during the noon'hour. As they approached from
the rear, they saw DeLane leaving the shop from the front.
He stopped and started taking notes on the fender of his
car. Woods waved and DeLane waved back. Then Woods
went into the shop where "the atmosphere was a little
unstable" and employees were talking about DeLane
having just been bodily thrown out by Meyer.3 At this
point, Meyer and his brother Jack came into the shop from
the front part and asked various employees if they had
signed union authorization cards. Some said they had and
some said they had not.4
About a week after this incident Business Agent Tucker
called on Meyer alone. Meyer's uncontradicted and
credited testimony about this visit was as follows:
Well, Mr. Tucker came in and he was very nice, and I
shook hands with him, asked him what I could do for
him. He said, "I would like to talk to you."
I said, "Fine, come on in."
He came in, sat down in a chair. We sat there and
chitchatted back and forth for a few little-maybe we
might have started talking about the weather or
something. And I asked how many electricians were
signed up in Corpus. He told me, "Well, the biggest
majority of them are." He said, "There's a few that's
not."
And so he said, "Herb, you ought to sign up." He
said, "I can take two of your men right now if I want
to."
The testimony of Herbert Meyer reveals that he was
aware, in 1965, that there was a union representing
electricians in the Victoria area and making an effort to
organize them at that time. He conceded that he may have
been contacted during that year by representatives of the
rooms and said "You boys break it up."
And Mr Meyer pointed again to the door. He said, "Now,
you get out of here " And Jack Meyer said, "You heard the
man say get out. Now, get out " So I turned, started to leave
Mr Meyers [sic] says, "Don 't ever come back "
And at this point I stopped , I turned around, I said , "Yes, I
will be back , and when I do I will have a Federal man or agent
with me." And I turned around and left.
There was no basic conflict in Meyer's version of the incident
except that it was only after DeLane had refused Meyer's
invitation to leave the premises that the latter threatened to and
did take direction to eject DeLane
4 The foregoing is from Woods' testimony corroborated by
Garland's There is a conflict between the General Counsel's and
Respondent's evidence as to whether or not Woods and his helper
had gotten into the shop in time to witness Meyer' s interrogation
of the employees Since the interrogation was admitted by Meyer,
and corroborated by another of Respondent' s witnesses , I credit
Woods
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union. He admitted that, from time to time, he had "had
discussions with other electrical companies or contractors
in the area about whether their shops [were] organized or
not." He also admitted that on April 12, 1966, DeLane had
called on him and had asked him if he was bidding a
certain job. He told DeLane at this time that he was, but
asked him to call back later to talk to him about it. A few
days later, DeLane called to tell him that since he was
bidding the job, he thought he ought to call Meyer to tell
him what the union scale was. Meyer's comment was,
"Well, I plan on bidding it open shop, and if I get the job, I
plan on doing it open shop."
Thereafter Meyer got a call from another contractor in
the area, one Hanselka, who informed Meyer that he had
received a letter from Local 2785 and asked if Meyer had
received one. Meyer replied that he had not.
On April 28, the Union posted a letter in Corpus Christi
by certified mail to Respondent requesting recognition as
the collective-bargaining representative of a majority of
Respondent's employees exclusive of material expediters
and supervisory and clerical employees. At this time, there
were 13 of Respondent's employees in such a unit (which I
find to be an appropriate unit for collective- bargaining
purposes under the Act) and the Union had authorization
cards from 7 of those in the unit.6 When Meyer's
bookkeeper informed him that he had a certified letter at
the post office, Meyer asked her where it was from. She
told him that it was from Corpus Christi.' Meyer told her
to "leave it there," and admitted on the stand that he "had
an idea" that the letter was from the Union. Knowing of
this letter and the one that Hanselka had received, Meyer
then proceeded to ask "some of [the employees] if they
had signed a [union ] card."
On Monday, May 23, when Woods and Garland reported
for work they were discharged. As for the details of his
discharge Woods testified credibly as follows: When he
got to work that morning, after filling out his timecard he
turned around and Meyer asked him to step into the office.
There, Meyer closed the door and asked him to sit down.
Meyer then said, "Woody, I'm going to have to lay you
off." Woods was not sure he had heard correctly and
asked what he had said. Meyer then repeated the
statement . As the reasons for the layoff Meyer told Woods
that he had lost a lot of money in a loan company and that
his doctor had said that the Company was getting too big
and that he had heart trouble. Woods said that he
understood and Meyer said that he could either wait for his
check or pick it up some other time. Woods said that he
would pick it up at noon and Meyer said that he would be
paid for a full day. They shook hands. Woods said that it
had been nice working for him and Meyer said, "Well,
Woody, I know you can find a job because you are [either]
a good man [or] a good electrician " Woods thanked him
and Meyer asked him how his eye injury was getting along
(he had received an injury the week before) and Woods
said it was doing all right. Meyer also said that if he had
any trouble (presumably in getting a job) he would take
5 Meyer claimed that Hanselka did not say "what was in the
letter " This is patently incredible unless there were other
circumstances not revealed in the record which made it
unnecessary for Hanselka to describe the contents of the letter I
find that whatever the fact was, Meyer was at least aware that the
letter in question had to do with the Union's organizing campaign
" Respondent would void two of these cards signed on April 27
(those of Felix Rosas, Jr , and E L Bues) on the grounds that they
had been signed after DeLane had talked to Business Agent
Tucker on April 27, presumably about the Union's letter to
care of it for Woods. Then Meyer opened the door and told
Jack Meyer to let Woods out and get his tools. So Woods
shook hands with Jack and told him that it had been nice
working for him and that was that. During the interview,
Meyer also had told Woods that he was going to have to lay
off some other employees at this time.
As for the details of Garland's discharge, he testified
credibly and without denial as follows:
Well, I went to work and there were two or three
employees standing around outside by the trucks and
the sliding door was shut and locked, and ... I didn't
know if just nobody had showed up yet to open the
shop or what, so I knocked on the door and somebody
unbolted it and slid it open, and Mr. Herbert Meyer
asked me to come into his office and sit down, and so I
did, and he said that he was either going to have to
turn me loose or let me go, I don't recall which, and
that he had lost a lot of money in Coastal Loans, and
that he was having some heart trouble, and that there
were a lot of people on his back, and that he was just
going to have to cut down on his work because there
was too much strain, and then I asked him if the union
trying to organize the shop was adding to the strain.
... He replied that he didn't mind telling me it was a
good part of it.
Meyer also told Garland at this time that whenever he saw
Garland on the job he always seemed like he "was really
trying."' He also told Garland while he was waiting for his
check that if he did not find anything in a couple of weeks
to come back "and he would see what he could do."
On May 25, the Union sent the following telegram to
Respondent:
Request immediate reinstatement of John H. Woods
and James L. Garland and meeting to discuss
reinstatement and arrange date for contract
negotiations. Please confirm meeting today by calling
me room 86 Totah's Hotel while I and IBEW attorney
still in town so that further legal recourse be
unnecessary.
The Union's letter of April 27 requesting recognition,
which Meyer had refused to accept, was not returned by
the post office to the Union until about May 20. When it
was returned Business Agent Tucker's secretary simply
took it out of its envelope, placed it in another one, and
posted it again, certified mail, returned receipt requested.
The return receipt shows that it was delivered to
Respondent on May 31, 1966.
Contentions and Concluding Findings
A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The General Counsel has alleged various incidents of
illegal interrogation by Respondent and threats of
discharge or other reprisals in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act and contends that the foregoing evidence
sustains such allegations . I agree. Specifically, I find that
Respondent claiming to represent a majority of the employees
Whatever the fact, it is clear that the letter was not posted until
the 28th, the day following the signing of the two cards in
question, and that the Union did represent a majority at that time
The Union's headquarters were located at Corpus Christi
Garland had started working for Respondent as an
electrician's helper on March 1, 1966 His prior experience
included 4 years of electrical work in the Navy and 3 years with
another electrical contractor During most of his tenure with
Respondent Garland was assigned to work with Woods
CITY ELECTRIC CO.
by the following incidents Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act:
1. Meyer's interrogation of Woods in early May as to
whether he had signed a union card and his threat to
Woods not to sign "because it would cause a lot of
trouble" for him. Respondent's contention that here there
are "no circumstances from which a reasonable tendency
to restrain or interfere can be inferred" is rejected.
2. Meyer's interrogation of Bues in early May as to
whether the union men had been by to see him, and his
threats to Bues at that time that his signing of a union card
would cause trouble and not to "get into any deep water."
Respondent's contention here that the only logical
interpretation of Meyer's interrogation was that Meyer was
interested in learning if the union men had interfered with
the job is refuted, I believe, by his coupling his question
with his threats about signing a union card.
3. Meyer's admitted interrogation of the employees on
May 20.
B. Dtscrimtnatton
In my opinion, by the foregoing facts, the General
Counsel has also established a prima facie case supporting
a finding that the discharges of Woods and Garland were
discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
As a defense to the allegations of discrimination,
Respondent relies on the undenied and credited testimony
of Clarence Milberger, a journeyman electrician of some
13-1/2 years' tenure with Respondent, to whom other
employees upon occasion went for help. Milberger
testified that on four occasions he was called on by Meyer
to correct work that Woods had done. On three iccasions
the trouble involved improper connections of breaker
switches and was immediately obvious to Milberger who
was able to correct it then and there by simply making the
proper connections. One of the jobs had to do with a
failure to get power to some house trailers. Milberger
discovered that the cause of this failure was due to some
bad connections on the power pole and again in a few deft
moves he was able to correct the trouble.
Besides this testimony by Milberger, it appears that on
May 20 Woods and his helper, Garland, were working on a
job at the Christopher Inn. About this job Meyer testified
as follows:
... Woody had been running that job out there for a
good while. And Woody is a good boy, but he missed a
bunch of the partitions. Mr. Tommy Tighe was on the
job out there quite a bit, who is one of the four owners
in Christopher Inn, which is owned, the way I
understand, Don Krueger, Chris DiStefano, Tommy
Tighe and Gene Weatherly, and Mr. Tighe asked me to
remove Woods off the job? ... Well, Tommy called
me and I went out there and looked at the situation,
and then we went and had a cup of coffee, and he
asked me, he said, `Herb, ain't there some way that
you can take that guy off that job?"'
'The record does not show why Tighe made the request and
Tighe was not called as a witness
"' The seriousness of Woods ' shortcomings , in any event, here
seems somewhat tenuous considering his age and inexperience
Moreover , the voluntary increase given him by Meyer ( before the
advent of the Union ) tends to further undermine the force of
Respondent's position
it After all , another journeyman had been hired after Woods
was hired
11 Notwithstanding journeyman Milberger 's testimony that on
847
From the cross-examination of Meyer, it appeared that
Tighe had no working connection with the job but that
having "quite a bit of time on his hands" he spent it there;
that the general contractor on the job was a Don Krueger;
that Krueger's brother, Virgil, was superintendent on the
job; and that Meyer had talked to both the Kruegers before
May 20 about the job but so far as the record shows no
mention was made of Woods.
As for the two people who came to work for Respondent
after Woods and Garland were terminated, Meyer
explained that one was his nephew who had worked for
him from time to time including the previous summer
while going to school and that he had recently joined the
Air Force and was working temporarily before leaving for
the service. The other was his teenage son who has been
working or tinkering around in the shop during summer
vacations since he was 10 years old.
While Respondent's evidence of improper work may
tend to show some justification for the termination of
Woods,"' it is not convincing enough in my opinion to
override the strong indicia of discrimination here-the
timing of the discharges so soon after the dramatic
confrontation between the union business agent and
Meyer, the failure to give Woods any prior warning of the
claimed dissatisfaction with his work, and the failure to
apprise him of the true reasons for his selection for
termination." These things considered, along with the
leading part Woods played in the union campaign, the
demonstrated opposition of Meyer to the Union, and the
warnings Meyer gave to Woods about how his joining the
Union could cause him trouble, convince me that Woods'
discharge was motivated in substantial part by the Union's
attempt to organize Respondent's employees, and as such
was discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act. Indeed, by Meyer's own admission this was the
fact.
As for Respondent's contention that it had no
knowledge of Woods' or Garland's union activities when
they were discharged, it seems to me that, true or not,
Meyer's admission that the Union's organizing efforts
played "a good part" in the discharges disposes of this
defense. 12 In any event, considering the small size of the
unit, and the interrogation to which Meyer submitted his
employees regarding their signing of union cards, I believe
that the inference is fully warranted that Respondent did,
in fact, have knowledge of the union activity of these
employees when they were discharged.
C. The Refusal to Bargain
As previously shown, on April 28, 1966 (the day that the
Union's letter requesting recognition was mailed to
Respondent), the Union represented a majority of
Respondent's employees in an appropriate bargaining
unit. Respondent's position in substance apparently is that
since it refused to receive the Union's letter until May 31,
occasion he had two helpers working with him and might even
have as high as four helpers assigned to work with him,
Respondent's position regarding the termination of Garland is
that since "Garland was a helper to Woods and since Woods was
terminated the Respondent could not utilize Garland on any other
crew " Whether true or not (the mdicia of discrimination
applicable to Woods' case are equally applicable to Garland's)
having found that Woods' discharge was discriminatory it follows
that perforce so is Garland's
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it had no valid request for recognition until that time,13 and
that in any event, if it could be said that a valid demand for
recognition had been made, Respondent's refusal to
recognize and bargain with the Union was based on its
good-faith doubt that the Union did, in fact, represent a
majority of the employees. I disagree with the Respondent
on both counts.
Clearly, Respondent can hardly claim that no bargaining
demand was made where it "refused to receive
communications" from the Union. N.L.R.B. v. Columbian
Enameling & Stamping Co., Inc., 306 U.S. 292, 297. Its
letter of demand having been rejected, the Union was
under no further obligation to communicate a demand.14
In any event, I would find that in the circumstances here
DeLane's claim of majority representation and request for
negotiations on May 20 were an adequate demand for
recognition. Moreover, since I have found that the
discharges of Woods and Garland were discriminatory
those two must be included in any computation of majority
representation as of May 31. As of that date there were 14
employees in the unit and with the cards of Woods and
Garland the Union represented 9 of those employees-a
clear majority.
As for the question of good faith here on the part of
Meyer, at the outset it is impugned by his refusal to accept
the Union's certified letter and to see the Union's
representatives. See Filler Products, Inc., 159 NLRB
1536. Thereafter, any claim of good faith is further refuted
by his illegal conduct which clearly demonstrated his
rejection of the policies of the Act and the collective
bargaining that it encourages. I find therefore that from
April 29 (the day that the Union's letter of April 27 should
normally have reached Respondent) Respondent refused
to bargain with the Union and that such refusal violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations
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 Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall
recommend that Respondent, upon request, be ordered to
bargain with the Union concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. I shall also
recommend that Respondent offer John H. Woods and
James L. Garland immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions and that
they be made whole for any loss of pay from the dates of
their discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement
less their net earnings during that period. Loss of pay shall
be computed and paid in accordance with the formula
adopted by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and with interest thereon at the rate of 6
percent per annum as prescribed by the Board in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent
involve conduct in derogation of the principles of good-
faith collective bargaining. The inference is thus
warranted that Respondent maintains an attitude of
opposition to the purposes of the Act with respect to the
protection of employee rights in general . Accordingly, I
shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to 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 the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. City Electric Company is and at all times material
herein has been an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union 278, AFL-CIO, is and at all times material
herein has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, as found above, Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating against its employees, as found
above, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the Union as the representative of all of Respondent's
employees, excluding clerical employees, material
expediter employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors,
as defined in the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I recommend that Respondent, City Electric
Company, Victoria, Texas, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of its employees in
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 278, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization by
discriminatorily discharging or in any other manner
discriminating against them in regard to their hire, tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 278, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
all Respondent's employees excluding clerical employees,
" It denies that DeLane's claim of majority representation and 925 (C A 2), Local No 152, International Brotherhood of
request for negotiations to Meyer on May 20 was a legally binding Teamsters v N L R B (American Compressed Steel), 343 F 2d 307,
demand for recognition 309 (C A D C ), N L R B v Burton-Dixie Corporation, 210 F 2d
14 Scobell Chemical Company, Inc v. N L R B, 267 F 2d 922, 199, 200 (C.A 10)
CITY ELECTRIC CO.
material expediter employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
(c) Illegally interrogating its employees about their
union activities, membership, or sympathies.
(d) Threatening its employees with discharge or other
reprisals because of their union activities.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to bargain collectively through representa
tives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to John H. Woods and James L. Garland
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 278, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit and
embody in a signed contract any understanding reached.
(d) Post at its shop in Victoria, Texas, the attached
notice marked "Appendix."15 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 23, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.'s
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless on or before
20 days from the receipt of this Decision the Respondent
notifies the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, that it
will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring it
to take such action.
15 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
i6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the
Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
849
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union 278, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor
organization, by discriminatorily discharging them or
in any other manner discriminating against them in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
aforesaid Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all our employees, excluding clerical
employees, material expediter employees, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors, as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT illegally interrogate our employees
concerning their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge or other reprisals for engaging in union
activities or joining a union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
the aforesaid Union 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, or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
WE WILL offer John H. Woods and James L. Garland
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges and
make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of our discrimination against them.
WE WILL, upon request, meet and bargain
collectively with International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union 278, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive bargaining representative of all our
employees in the above-described appropriate
bargaining unit; concerning rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
All of our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
aforesaid Union or any other labor organization.
CITY-ELECTRIC-
-COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617 Federal
Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002,
Telephone 228-0611, Extension 4721.