Colony Materials, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1347 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

COLONY MATERIALS, INC. 1347
Colony Materials , Inc. and International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 492.
Case No. 28-CA-677 (formerly 33-CA-677). December 19, 1961
DECISION AND, ORDER '
On July 31, 1961, Trial, Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in, the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair, labor
practices and recommending that, it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action; as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. 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
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and
Brown].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case,l and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.2
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Colony Materials,
Inc., Santa Fe, New Mexico, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
i Subsequent to the close of the hearing, the Respondent filed a motion with the Board
to reopen the record. In support of this motion, the Respondent submitted letters and an
affidavit attesting to the fact that Griego has failed and refused to accept the valid offer
of reinstatement made to him at the hearing herein and that Ortiz has refused to accept
the Respondent' s unconditional offer of reinstatement made to him on August 9, 1961.
It contends that this additional evidence tends to show that Griego and Ortiz never de-
sired reinstatement and casts doubt on their credited testimony to the effect'that the
Respondent only offered them "extra" work. We find no merit in the motion insofar as
it is directed to the Trial Examiner's resolutions of credibility , as a clear preponderance
of the record does not demonstrate that such resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry
Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544. In view thereof, and as the Respondent 's backpay
liability for Ortiz is a matter which can be determined on compliance , the motion to
reopen is denied
21n adopting the Tiial Examiner 's conclusion that Respondent discriminated against
Ortiz, Griego, Archuleta, and Vigil in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, we find it
unnecessary to consider whether, upon their application for reinstatement , they were
unfair labor practice strikers as found by the Trial Examiner For , when these dis-
criminatees applied for reinstatement , they had, not been replaced and, therefore, whether
economic "r unfair labor practice strikers , they were entitled to the reinstatement which
was denied them Contrary to Member Rodgers, we are adopting the Trial Examiner's
finding that the application for reinstatement made by Ortiz, Griego, and Archuleta on
October 25, 1960, was an unconditional one. In our opinion , neither-the language of the
request nor the attendant circumstances establishes that their willingness to return to
work was conditioned upon the rehire of anybody else.
134 NLRB No. 134.
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor
organization, by failing to accept unconditional offers to return to
work by unreplaced strikers or by failing unlawfully to return such
applicants to their former or substantially equivalent positions.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own-choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and 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, in conformity
with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Dan Ortiz, Mac
Vigil, and Casimiro Archuleta each to his former or substantially
equivalent position.
(b) Make whole Dan Ortiz, Mac Vigil, Casimiro Archuleta, and
Dave Griego for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the Re-
spondent's refusal to accept their unconditional offers to return to
work.
(c) 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 or appropriate to analyze the amounts
of backpay due under this Order.
(d) Post at its office in Santa Fe, New Mexico, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-eighth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted immedi-
ately 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. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-eighth Region,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER RODGERS, concurring :
On April 1, 1960, the Respondent purchased its business from Ken
Pike, retaining on its payroll 6 of Pike's 10 employees. On April 12,
$ 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, Erifoicing an Order."
COLONY MATERIALS, INC. 1349
four of the six employees retained by the Respondent went on strike.
On October 25, 1960, three of the strikers, along with Yeager and
Anaya, the latter being former Pike employees who were not retained
by Respondent, appeared at Respondent's plant .4 Anaya told Re-
spondent's bookkeeper: "We have come to get our jobs back." The
bookkeeper responded that Respondent's president was out of town
and that the strikers should come back in a day or two. The strikers
then left. They did not again contact the Respondent until Novem-
ber 10.
Because he was not retained on Respondent's payroll when Re-
spondent assumed Pike's operations, Anaya was not an employee of
Respondent on October 25. As evidenced by the Regional Director's
action in dismissing the 8 (a) (3) charge in Case No. 33-CA-635 after
investigation, there is no question that Respondent's action in dis-
charging Anaya and others was not discriminatory or otherwise im-
proper. Consequently, he had no valid claim, legal or otherwise, to
"our jobs." It follows that as Anaya was the sole spokesman for the
group of strikers, his statement cannot be construed as an uncondi-
tional offer by the strikers to abandon the strike and to return to
work.
However, as the record discloses that Respondent did not rely upon
the conditional nature of the strikers' offer, but subsequently offered
employment to some of these individuals and rejected others on
grounds separate and apart from Anaya's October 25 request, I con-
cur in the result reached by my colleagues.
'It is not entirely clear whether or not the strike was for the purpose of forcing the
Respondent to rehire Anaya and other former Pike employees whom the Respondent dis-
charged. However, such a conclusion is strongly suggested by the facts . In this regard,
it should be noted that the Trial Examiner erred when he said that in a prior case in-
volving the same parties , Colony Materials, Inc., 130 NLRB 105, the Board found "that
the strike was caused by the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent." The
Board made no such finding . In that case the Board found that the Respondent refused
to bargain with the employees ' duly certified bargaining representative-no allegation was
made, nor did the Board consider, whether the strike was or was not in support of the
8(a) (5) charge . However, with respect to the purpose of the strike , it is noteworthy,
that the original charge was filed on April 11, 1960 , 1 day before the strike commenced,
and that the charge alleged , in addition to the 8(a) (5) violation , that Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by failing to retain certain of Pike's employees, including
Anaya, on the Respondent 's payroll . And significantly , the 8 ( a) (3) charge was dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE wnL offer Dan Ortiz, Mac Vigil, and Casimiro Archuleta,
immediate and full employment, each in his former or substan-
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed. We have offered such
employment to Dave Griego and we will make Griego, Ortiz,
Vigil, and Archuleta whole for any loss of pay suffered as a re-
sult of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT by unlawfully refusing to accept unconditional
offers of unreplaced strikers to return to work or in any other
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 492, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of•em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
All of our employees are free to become, or remain, or to refrain
from becoming or remaining members of International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 492, or
any other labor organization.
COLONY MATERIALS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- B3'------==-- ---
(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 filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 492, herein called the Union, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint dated April 18, 1961,
alleging that Colony Materials, Inc., Santa Fe, New Mexico, herein called the
Respondent, had violated and was violating Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing in this matter was held before the duly desig-
nated Trial Examiner in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on May 24 and 25, 1961. All
parties were represented and participated in the hearing. Briefs received from
counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent have been con-
sidered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation 1 of the witnesses,
I make the following:
1 The demeanor of the several witnesses constitutes an important, substantial, and
sometimes determinative element in the appraisal of credibility. The resolutions of that
nature which follow have been made upon consideration of that criterion
COLONY MATERIALS, INC.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
1351
The Respondent is a New Mexico corporation with its principal office and place
of business in Santa Fe, New Mexico. There the Respondent manufactures, sells,
and distributes ready mixed concrete. For the 12-month period ending April 1,
1961, in the course of its business operations, the Respondent purchased equipment
and materials valued in excess of $50,000, from New Mexico suppliers which in
turn received such equipment and materials from points outside the State of New
Mexico. I find that Respondent's operations are in and affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On April 1, 1960, Respondent took over by purchase the business formerly op-
erated by one Ken Pike. On April 12 some of the employees went on strike. Upon
a complaint of the General Counsel a hearing was held and a Board decision
reached 2 finding that the strike was caused by unfair labor practices committed by
the Respondent.
On October 25, 1960, three of the strikers, Dan Ortiz, Casimiro Archuleta, and
Dave Griego, with others, came to the plant. President Philip Naumburg being
absent from the city, their spokesman told David Allen, the bookkeeper, that the
men had come to get their jobs back. Allen said that Naumburg was out of town
and the men left. The fact that these strikers had come to the plant for the purpose
of going back to work came to Naumburg's attention a day or two later. Naumburg
took no action in the matter.
In late October or early November, Mac Vigil, a striker, telephoned Naumburg
and asked for reemployment. Naumburg answered that there was no job opening.
On November 10, Ortiz and Archuleta came again to the plant seeking work.
Naumburg told Archuleta that his job no longer existed and that there was no place
for him. Ortiz was, told, he testified credibly, that he was offered work as an extra
man and warned that if'he made any mistakes he would be terminated at once.
Ortiz told Naumburg that he had a temporary job which he wished to finish. The
meeting ended with Naumburg expecting Ortiz to return on November 21. Ortiz
testified that he did not agree to come back; that he was not interested in "extra"
work.
On January 7, 1961, the four strikers, Vigil, Archuleta, Ortiz, and Griego, went
to the plant and spoke with Naumburg. Naumburg again told Archuleta that his
job no longer existed and that there was no place for him. For the first time he told
Vigil that at the time the strike began Vigil was then .to have been laid off and that
he would not be rehired. Naumburg told Ortiz that he had expected him to return
to work on November 21 and as he had not done so, there was no job for him.
Turning to Griego, Naumburg said that this was the first time Griego had made an
attempt to return. On January 8 Naumburg sent and Griego received a telegram
offering employment on the following day, a Monday. Before starting time on
Monday, January 9, Griego came to Naumburg's office apparently prepared to go
to work. It was a cold and snowy morning and no concrete was being hauled.
According to Griego's credited testimony, Naumburg said that business was slow
and that he would be able to afford Griego about 2 or 3 hours' work a day. Griego
stood about for a short time, during which he was noticeably snubbed by other
employees, and then left the plant. According to Griego. he had another job in
which he was guaranteed 5 hours a day employment and in this circumstance he did
not find Naumburg's offer acceptable. During the hearing on May 24 and 25,
through Respondent's counsel, Griego was offered unconditional reinstatement to
his former employment. I am not informed whether Griego accepted the offer.
It is urged on the part of the Respondent that both Vigil and Archuleta lost their
employment upon nondiscriminatory considerations. As to Vigil, Naumburg testified
decision was reached to employ him when Naumburg took over on April 1. After
observing Vigil on some occasions as a truckdriver, according to Naumburg, he
observed him to be somewhat less than expert in handling the truck but considering
Vigil's pleasing personality, he believed that he would develop into a good employee.
8130 NLRB 105.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 9 Vigil damaged a motor on a truck. Jack Sloan , Respondent's mechanic,
testified that the nature of the damage was such that in all probability it was due to
mishandling by Vigil and that he so reported to Naumburg. Naumburg testified
that he accepted Sloan 's attribution of fault and that he immediately determined that
Vigil must be replaced . Naumburg asked a business acquaintance to learn if the
latter could recommend a driver to him and mentioned that one of his drivers had
damaged a truck motor . Considering , according to Naumburg , that the prospective
employee located through this inquiry was not immediately available and that Vigil's
workweek would not end until Wednesday, he delayed bringing about Vigil's dis-
charge and mentioned nothing about the damage to Vigil. On April 12 before the
end of the workweek and before a replacement for Vigil was available, the strike
began and Vigil, of course, did not report for work.
At the hearing in the earlier unfair labor practice case in July 1960, of which
mention has been made, Naumburg testified "Mac Vigil and Casimiro Archuleta
were slated to leave the day after they went on strike."
Naumburg voiced no complaint concerning the work attitude or performance on
the part of Archuleta. He explained that Archuleta's principal duty as an employee
was to transfer sand and gravel by way of a moving belt to the point where it was
mixed with water and cement . When not so occupied Archuleta swept up the plant
and burned trash. According to Naumburg, before the strike Archuleta was busy
on the conveyer belt about a third of the workday. About a week or two after the
strike began Naumburg had the operation of the belt changed so that it would
move sand and gravel at a faster speed . Ever since , according to Naumburg, the
conveyer belt operation has been handled by the batch plant operator, the mechanic,
any truckdriver who might be standing around waiting for his truck to be loaded, or
even by Naumburg. No individual has been hired to take the place of Archuleta.
Counsel for the Respondent asserts that from the circumstances that none of
the strikers applied for reinstatement until almost 3 months after the cessation of
picketing, it should be found that none of them was really interested in returning
to work ; that the applications made thereafter were inspired or directed by the
Union . The strikers may have been reluctant to return to employment after their
unsuccessful strike . Loss of face would be involved and, further , they would have
as associates on the job those who had not gone out on strike with them and per-
haps some who had come to work during the strike . It may be that without prodding
from the Union they would have abandoned their jobs . But they didn't. Each
applied for reinstatement . I find that they did so in good faith . Upon such appli-
cations, leaving special circumstances aside , the Respondent was obliged to take
them back, discharging, if necessary , any replacements.
The applications of Ortiz, Griego, and Archuleta on October 25 are not to be
fobbed off because Naumburg was not at the plant . They applied at the proper
place and to the man in charge , Allen. Assuming that Allen lacked authority to
put them back to work he nonetheless quickly told Naumburg about it and the latter
did nothing . By doing nothing Naumburg rejected the applications . When Vigil
telephoned Naumburg for work he was told that no opening existed for him. Thus
his application too was rejected.
I find that Ortiz , Griego , Archuleta , and Vigil offered unconditionally to return
to work and that as soon as Naumburg learned of this he was under a duty imposed
by decisional law to take them back. The reasons advanced for not putting the
men to work on the several occasions when they applied will now be examined.
Taking first the situation of Mac Vigil, it is urged on the part of the Respondent
that because of the damage to a truck motor on April 9 decision had been reached
to discharge him and that therefore he had no employee status in late October or
early November when he asked to be reemployed. Vigil testified that on April 9
he was driving a truck not regularly assigned to him , that the motor was in poor
condition , and that the damage occurred without his fault . Respondent 's mechanic
testified that the motor was in good enough shape before Vigil misused it and that
Vigil was to blame in the matter. Naumburg, in his testimony, said that the
mechanical condition of the equipment and trucks was poor when he took over on
April 1. If Naumburg really felt that Vigil was blameworthy in the matter, it is
odd that he did not ask Vigil for an explanation . Just a few days earlier Naumburg
considered Vigil to be an employee of some promise. Although he had opportunity
to do so, not until January 7, 1961, did Naumburg tell Vigil that he considered him
to have been discharged in April because of the truck incident. I credit the testi-
mony of Naumburg that he was seeking another truckdriver a few days before the
strike began and that he arranged , through a business acquaintance , to hire a man
who reported for work on April 14. 1 think that it does not follow from this, how-
COLONY MATERIALS, INC. - 1353
ever, that the additional driver was hired to replace Vigil. Naumburg's own testi-
mony is that he chose Vigil as an employee on April 1, after observing him at work
on occasions over a period of several weeks and in the belief that Vigil would de-
velop into a valuable worker. Against this background, I do not believe Naum-
burg's testimony that he decided to discharge Vigil upon learning of the motor
damage. I think that he would not have done so without first seeking to learn from
Vigil just what had happened.
It is obvious that the Respondent did not want to rehire any of the strikers. The
testimony of Naumburg in the earlier unfair labor practice hearing that Vigil and
Archuleta were slated to leave the day after they went on strike must be viewed
against that background. As to Archuleta, Naumburg's own testimony refutes his
assertion that Archuleta was slated for discharge on that early date. The arrange-
ment to increase the speed of the sand and gravel belt was not completed until several
weeks after the strike began . Thus, Archuleta would have been kept busy for at
least that period of time and could not have been by reason or lack of work slated
for discharge the day after the strike began.
Naumburg testified that running the sand and gravel belt now requires about 2
hours' work a day.3 Joe Chavez, an employee called as a witness by Respondent,
testified that the belt required the attention of a man for 3 or 4 hours a day. Of
course, the amount of time needed to run sand and gravel over the belt would vary
widely with the amount of concrete produced. In any event, Archuleta was at least
partly replaced. The truckdriver, the batch plant operator, the bookkeeper, and
Naumburg, himself, who, on occasion ran the sand and gravel belt, were performing
work that had been done by Archuleta. Allen testified, and I credit him, that the
Respondent tried to provide more than 30 hours a week of paid time for the em-
ployees. To make this possible the men covered sand bins, put heaters on the sand
pile, closed the cement silos, and did any kind of work that could be found in slack
periods . There is no reason to believe that Archuleta could not have been kept
busy in this fashion when he was not occupied with running the sand and gravel
belt . I find that the job which Archuleta held before the strike has not been
abolished.
Naumburg denied that he offered Ortiz work as an "extra man" on November 10
but conceded that he then said that hours would be short during the winter and that
if Ortiz did not perform his job properly he would quickly be discharged. No doubt
that Naumburg thought, on November 10, that Ortiz would return to work on
November 21. Ortiz testified that he did not do so because he wanted a steady
job-the kind of a job that he had before the strike. I find that the offer of work to
Ortiz was made by Naumburg in such a fashion as to encourage its rejection. In an-
other connection , Naumburg testified that in November the drivers were working
about 40 hours a week and that throughout the winter the Respondent, through
various devices, tried to provide 30 hours of work a week. This was not told to
Ortiz. Rather a gloomy picture of little work opportunity was presented. I find
that the offer on November 10 was not an offer to Ortiz of return to his former or
substantially equivalent position.
On January 9, according to Griego, Naumburg told him that business was slow
and that there would be only 2 or 3 hours' work a day. Naumburg denied saying
this and testified that he mentioned only the obvious fact that the cold and snowy
weather would lessen deliveries. Between Griego and Naumburg, I credit the
former. Here, again , as in the case of Ortiz, reluctant to take back a striker,
Naumburg offered a job so unattractive as to make rejection likely. No mention
was made to Griego about Respondent's policy of providing 30 hours' work a
week. I find that Griego was not, on January 9, offered reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position. The offer of reinstatement made to Griego
during the hearing on May 24 and 25, I find, was ,a valid offer. If it has not been
accepted the Respondent is under no duty to renew it.
By misrepresenting work opportunities to Ortiz and Griego in order to encourage
them not to accept reemployment, the Respondent in effect refused to offer them the
employment to which they were entitled and thus rejected their applications. By
such misrepresentation and by refusing to accept the unconditional offers to return
to work made by Vigil and Archuleta the Respondent has discouraged membership in
and activity on behalf of the Union and has thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
8 Naumburg testified that before the strike Archuleta spent about a third of his time at
this task . If he- was speaking of an 8-hour 'day the increase in speed brought about a
saving of only 40 minutes.
1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 its operations set forth 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
will be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As the Respondent has not accepted the unconditional offers of the strikers to
return to employment, it will be recommended that it offer to Ortiz, Vigil, and
Archuleta immediate and full reinstatement each to his former or substantially
equivalent position and that it be required to make Griego , Ortiz, Vigil , and Archu-
leta whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the failure to reinstate them or
any of them from the earliest date that each applied for reinstatement to the date
when such offer is made. In the case of Griego , a valid offer of reinstatement having
been made on May 25, 1961 , no further such offer need be held out and loss of
earnings for Griego shall be calculated to May 25, 1961 . As the unfair labor prac-
tices found indicate a propensity on the part of the Respondent to disregard the re-
quirements of the Act, a broad remedy will be recommended.
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 Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7 ) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By failing to accept the unconditional offers of Griego, Ortiz, Vigil, and
Archuleta to return to work and by failing to offer them their former or substantially
equivalent positions upon such applications , the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[ Recommendations omitted from publication.I
District No. 9, International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO and Greater St . Louis Automotive Trimmers and Uphol-
sterers Association , Inc. and Greater St. Louis Automotive
Association , Inc., Party to the Contract . C, ase No. 14-CE-5.
December 19, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by the Greater St. Louis Automotive
Trimmers and Upholsterers Association, Inc., herein called the
Trimmers Association, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region,
on December 20, 1960, issued a complaint alleging that District No. 9,
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(e) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the
134 NLRB No. 138.