Clarostat Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 775 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

CLAROSTAT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC 775
CLAROSTAT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE
WORKERS, CIO, LOCAL 242. Case No. 1-CA-1478. January
13, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 3, 1953, Trial Examiner C. W. Wittemore
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action , as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Re-
port attached hereto . Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report with a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed . The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. i The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
U on 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 Re-
spondent, Clarostat Manufacturing Company, Inc., Dover,
New Hampshire, and its agents , successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union
of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO , Local 242,
as the exclusive representative of all its factory production,
maintenance , clerical employees , and inspectors who work
on the floor in production areas and the production control
clerks, employed at the Respondent ' s Dover, New Hampshire,
plant , excluding executive and office clerical employees,
superintendents , foremen and general foremen, engineers,
inspectors of the engineering department , guards, and super-
iWe find no merit in the Respondent ' s contention that the Board erred in its unit finding as
embodied in the Supplemental Decision and Order Amending Certification of Representatives
and that the Trial Examiner erred in adopting those findings . As these issues were fully liti-
gated and considered by the Board in the representation proceeding , in the absence of evidence
which was newly discovered or unavailable to the Respondent at the time of the representation
hearing, it is clear that such issues are not properly the subject of relitigation in the instant
proceeding . North Carolina Granite Corporation , 98 NLRB 1197. In any event we are satisfied
that the Amendment of the Certification, after a hearing , so as to specifically include 2 em-
ployee classifications in the unit was in accord with our usual practice. See Radio Station
WAPA, 102 NLRB 1676 ; General Electric Co., 104NLRB 603 Indeed , this action is especially
justified in this case where it appears that the employees in the disputed categories had voted
with the others in the election without challenge by the Employer( Respondent herein).
107 NLRB NO 156.
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visors as defined in the Act, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , or other conditions of employ-
ment.
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Interna-
tional Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
CIO, Local 242, to bargain collectively with Respondent
on behalf of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit,
as their exclusive bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action , which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with International
Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, Local
242, as the exclusive representative of all employees of
Respondent in the aforesaid bargaining unit , with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , or other con-
ditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant in Dover , New Hampshire , copies
of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A.-2
Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for the First Region, shall , after being signed by Re-
spondent ' s authorized representative , be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall betaken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in
writing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
2In 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 "Pur-
suant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies
of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Inter-
national Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
CIO, Local 242, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described herein, with
respect to grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment , and other conditions of em-
ployment and, if an understanding is reached , embody
CLAROSTAT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 777
such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargain-
ing unit is:
All factory production , maintenance , clerical em-
ployees, and inspectors who work on the floor in
the production areas, and the production control
clerks employed at our Dover plant , excluding execu-
tive and office clerical employees , superintendents,
foremen and general foremen , engineers , inspect-
ors of the engineering department , guards, and
supervisors as defined by the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the
efforts of the above - named union to bargain collective-
ly with us , or refuse to bargain with said union, as the
exclusive representative of all our employees in the
bargaining unit set forth above.
CLAROSTAT MANUFACTURING 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
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed and served, complaints, an order consolidating cases,
and a notice of hearing thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, and answers having been filed, a hearing involving
allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat 136, herein called the Act, was held in Boston,
Massachusetts, on October 19, 1953, before the undersigned Trial Examiner
At the opening of the hearing, a motion by General Counsel was granted, without objec-
tion by other parties, to sever from the above-entitled case Cases Nos 1-CA-1420 and 1-
CB-221 A motion was likewise granted to strike from the complaint in 1-CA-1478 several
allegations appearing therein Said complaint, as thus amended, alleges in substance that
since September 10, 1951, the Respondent had refused to bargain collectively with the
charging Union as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit, and there-
by has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in the Act In substance, the answer admits that the Respondent has declined
to bargain with the Union for certain individuals within the unit
At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues,
to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions
Argument and briefs were waived
Upon the entire record in the case the Trial Examiner makes the following:
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Business of the Respondent
Clarostat Manufacturing Company, Inc , is a New York corporation , maintaining an of-
fice and place of business in Dover, New Hampshire, known as its Dover plant, where
it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of electrical equipment for radio
and television receivers and related products
The Respondent causes large quantities of metals and metal products to be shipped to
its Dover plant from States other than New Hampshire, and causes substantial quantities
of its finished products to be transported to States other than New Hampshire It is engaged
in defense work for the United States Armed Forces, and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, CIO , Local 242, is a
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The following findings of fact are based upon a stipulation entered into by the parties at
the hearing
On September 10, 1951, in Case No 1-RC -2295, the Board certified the charging Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative for all factory production , maintenance, and
clerical employees at the Dover plant, excluding executive and office clerical employees,
superintendents , foremen and general foremen , engineers , inspectors of the engineering
department , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act The Respondent recognizes
said -Union as the duly authorized representative for a majority of the employees ill the
said unit
On November 14, 1952, the Union filed a motion to clarify the certification above referred
to by amending the unit to include specifically production control clerks and inspectors who
work in the production area Following a hearing on issue, the Board on May 27, 1953,
amended the certification of employees included in the unit in the above-cited case by
specifically including the classifications in questions The Respondent acknowledges proper
notice of the Board decision , but maintains the position that such classifications are not
properly a part of the bargaining unit The Respondent offered no new evidence at the hear-
ing, stating that it desired to have the Board's action reviewed by the courts
The complaint alleges, the Board has found, and in accordance with the Board ' s above-
cited determination, the Trial Examiner now finds that all factory production, maintenance,
clerical employees, and inspectors who work on the floor in production areas and the pro-
duction control clerks employed at the Respondent ' s mover , New Hampshire, plant, ex-
eluding executive and office clerical employees , superintendents , foremen and general
foremen, engineers , inspectors of the engineering department , guards , and supervisors
as defined by the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the nneaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act
The Trial Examiner does not consider that the merit of the Respondent ' s claims is before
him for determination but, instead , that he serves as a niednun through whom the question
of such merit may reach the Board for reconsideration
The Trial Examiner therefore concludes and finds that since September 1951 the Re-
spondent has refused and is refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the above-described appropriate unit, and that by such
refusal the Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the ex-
ercise of rights guaranteed by the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF TI IF UNFAIR LABOR PRACI ICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section Ill, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close , intimate,
1105 NLRB 20
TAICHERT'S, INC. 779
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 of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practice of refusing
to bargain collectively with the chosen representative of its employees. It will therefore
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and from like and related conduct.
It will further be recommended that the Respondent bargain collectively, upon request,
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, Local 242, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All factory production, maintenance, clerical employees, and inspectors who work
on the floor in the production areas, and the production control clerks employed at the
Respondent's Dover, New Hampshire, plant excluding executive and office clerical em-
ployees, superintendents, foremen and general foremen, engineers, inspectors of the engi-
neering department, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
3. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, Local 242, was
on August 30, 1951, and at all times since has been, the exclusive representative of all
employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on and after September 10, 1951, to bargain collectively with the afore-
said Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the aforesaid unfair labor practice, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Sect-ion
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
TAICHERT ' S, INC . and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION , LOCAL 1564, AFL. Case No . 33-CA-226.
January 13, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed on May 7, 1953, and an amended charge
filed on June 8, 1953, by Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, Local 1564, AFL, herein called the Union, against
Taichert's, Inc., of Los Alamos, New Mexico, herein called
the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein respectively called the General
107 NLRB No. 167.