Concord Supplies & Equipment Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1873 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

CONCORD SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT CORP. 1873'
The case against the Company involves other principles , however; for even absent
any union pressures or a hiring hall arrangement , an employer may still discrim-
inate against an applicant who is not hired for lack of union clearance . On the other
hand, it is not necessarily unlawful for an employer to call upon a union for per-
sonnel; if it were, employers would commit an unfair labor practice whenever they
hired someone with knowledge of the applicant's union membership or lack of it.
While not completely free from doubt, I find that Respondent did, as Kube testified,
feel obligated to give the Union an opportunity to replace the original operator who,
as Kube testified , was not able to handle the job properly because the Company itself
had misinformed the Union concerning the kind of operator it needed . Such motiva-
tion is not unlawful in my opinion . Assuming, but without deciding , that Fisher
had made a timely application to someone with authority to hire, I find that Re-
spondent Company did not discriminate against Fisher.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent Company has not violated Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) and Respond-
ent Union has not violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
CONCORD SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT CORP. and ALUMINUM WORKERS IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 200, A. F. L. Case No. 10-CA-
1906. December 16,1954
Decision and Order
On July 30, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his In-
termediate 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.'
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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner .3
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
1 The Respondent' s request for oral argument is denied because the record and excep-
tions and brief, in our opinion , adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
2 The Trial Examiner, while stating the jurisdictional facts which disclose that the Re-
spondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, inadvertently failed to
make a specific finding to this effect We so find. Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110 NLRB 594.
3 Like the Trial Examiner , we reject as without merit Respondent 's contention that
employees Powell and Barnes were discharged for disobedience. In addition to the other
matters referred to by the Trial Examiner, we note that the alleged disobedience occurred
after Respondent had decided to discharge them and such disobedience was not asserted
as a reason at the time of the discharges.
110 NLRB No. 234.
338207-55-vol. 110-119
1874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Concord Supplies &
Equipment Corp., Russellville, Alabama, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member-
ship in, or their activities on behalf of, Aluminum `Yorkers Interna-
tional Union, Local No. 200, A. F. L., or any other labor organization,
in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1).
(b) Threatening its employees with reprisals because of their union
membership or activities.
(c) Discouraging membership in Aluminum Workers Interna-
tional Union, Local No. 200, A. F. L., or in any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by discriminatorily discharging or refusing to
reinstate any of its employees, or by otherwise discriminating in re-
gard to their hire or tenure of employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations , to join or assist the above-named or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the ex-
tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized by 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 to Mary McGee, Margaret Powell, and Velma Barnes
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make them and Nora Bell Hendrix and
Leona Stephenson whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth
in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social-security payment records, timecards, personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of back
pay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Russellville, Alabama, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of such notice, to be
& In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap-
peals, 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."
CONCORD SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT CORP. 1875
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by
it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
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 WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their mem-
bership in, or their activities on behalf of, Aluminum Workers
International Union, Local No. 200, A. F. L., or any other labor
organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or
coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals because of
theinunion membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Aluminum Workers
International Union, Local No. 200, A. F. L., or in any other labor
organization of our employees, by discharging or in any other
manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment,
except to the extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-
named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing 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 a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act. . All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union
or any other labor organization.
1876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer Mary McGee, Margaret Powell , and Velma
Barnes immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by them, and
make them and Nora Bell Hendrix and Leona Stephenson whole
for any loss of pay suffered by them as the result of the dis-
crimination against them.
CONCORD SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT CORP.,
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, a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named Respondent
Company, a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61
Stat. 136, herein called the Act, was held in Tuscumbia, Alabama, on June 23, 1954,
before the duly designated Trial Examiner.
In substance the complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent:
(1) On September 17, 1953, discriminatorily discharged five employees (Mary
McGee, Margaret Powell, Velma Barnes, Nora Bell Hendrix, and Leona Stephen-
son) to discourage membership in the above-named Union; (2) on about the same
date and thereafter, through certain of its officers and agents, interrogated and threat-
ened employees regarding their union membership and activities; and (3) by such
conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel, were afforded full oppor-
tunity 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 pro-
posed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Counsel for the Respondent argued
orally. No briefs were filed. .
Disposition of the motion to dismiss, made by the Respondent at the close of the
hearing and upon which ruling was then reserved, is made by the following findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Concord Supplies & Equipment Corp. is a New York corporation with a manufac-
turing plant at Russellville, Alabama, where it is engaged in the production and sale
of canvas and webbing products. During the year 1953 it manufactured and sold
to the military forces of the United States products such as bandoleers, parachute
bags, suspenders, and ponchos valued at more than $2,500,000.
The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Aluminum Workers International Union, Local No. 200, A. F. L., is a labor organ-
ization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
CONCORD SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT CORP. 1877
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharges
1. Events
The major events in issue-involving the discharges of certain employees-oc-
curred within a period of 2 days after self-organizational efforts had begun among
the Respondent's employees, and less than 24 hours after one of these employees had
been called to the office and there, according to her undisputed testimony, had been
severely interrogated and threatened by the assistant plant supervisor about union
activities.
Margaret Powell, an inspector of a small production unit, on September 15, 1953,
initiated the move toward organization by obtaining a quantity of Local 200 appli-
cation cards from her husband who was a member, although employed elsewhere.
During the lunch hour that day Powell got signatures upon these cards from a num-
ber of employees, including Mary McGee and Leona Stephenson. That night Powell
and Velma Barnes visited many other employees at their homes for the same purpose.
The next afternoon, September 16, McGee was called to the main office for inter-
view by Vincent Fields, assistant to Joseph Martin, who was in charge of the plant.
Her testimony concerning that interview is uncontradicted. (Fields was not called as
a witness. Although there is evidence that he is no longer employed at the plant, no
evidence shows that he was unavailable or that any effort had been made to have him
present at the hearing. Moreover, although a statement by counsel for the Respond-
ent indicates that they were still working at the plant, two office employees, said by
McGee to have been present at the interview, were not called as witnesses by the
Respondent. Under the circumstances the Trial Examiner credits McGee's uncon-
troverted testimony.) That testimony is quoted:
I went in and Vincent Fields called me over and said "Sit down." He had
my application [for employment] out and it has a picture attached to the cor-
ner. He said, "Mary, this just doesn't look like you." I said, "What do you
mean?" He said, "This isn't the sweet little girl you are." He said, "Do you
like your work?" I said, "Fine." He said it was reported to him I was hand-
ing out Union cards and I asked him who told him and he said it wasn't neces-
sary to tell me and went on and said would I tell him if I signed a card. He
asked we how I felt about a Union and I told him I thought it would be a fine
thing if we could organize and he asked me how the card looked and I said I
didn't know. .
He said, "Can't you trust me?" I said, "I can't trust anyone." He said,
"Darling, you know I love you." I said, "What do you mean?" He said, "Tell
me if they have started a Union-I am not going to fire you." He kept on try-
ing to find out how I felt and then he said, "I will let you go back to your
machine. .
He said, "I will let you go back to your work but if I find out you signed a
Union card I will have to let you go because we can't have that going on."
After work the same afternoon McGee, Powell, Barnes, and Nora Bell Hendrix
were among about 40 employees who held a meeting some distance from the plant.
The next morning, September 17, shortly after reporting for work McGee was
again called to the office. This time she was interviewed by Joseph Martin, plant
supervisor, and Sidney Bromberg, senior foreman. On the desk before them were
the employment applications of some 15 or 20 other employees. The interview
is credibly described, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, by the following quota-
tion from McGee's testimony, and it is found that the colloquy occurred substantially
as related by her. (Not only is McGee's testimony fully reasonable of belief, in
view of her uncontradicted account of Fields' preceding interview with her, but, as
described in the section immediately below, Martin's version of events that morning
is unreliable.)
[Martin] said, "Mary, we are letting you go and I guess you know the reason."
I said, "I don't have any idea." He said, "Don't play quiet." I said, "What
do you mean?" He said, "You don't know anything about a union?" I said,
"What do you mean?" He said, "Several have said you approached them with
a Union card." I said, "Show them to me and I will show you they lied." He
said it wasn't necessary. I said, "If you think I am the `roots', you are wrong."
He said, "Can you point out the `roots'?" He spread out the pictures. I said, "I
am not talking-you can fire me." He said, "If that is the way you feel about
1878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it, I am letting you go ." I said , "That is the way I feel about it." I got my
purse and left.
When Margaret Powell reported that morning her card was not in the time rack
but Foreman Schembari nevertheless told her to go on to work. Within a few min-
utes after McGee left, Schembari sent Powell into the office . Both Powell and
Barnes had been told by McGee of Fields' threats to her the day before, and when
told to go to the office Powell asked Barnes to accompany her. They went in
together.
The following events then occurred , as revealed by their credible testimony. (Mar-
tin's account of the interview is substantially the same.) Martin had before him
their applications for employment . He told Barnes to leave. Powell insisted that
she be permitted to remain as a witness , telling Martin, "If she can 't stay you will
have to get someone else because I am not staying alone ." He then told Barnes to
have a seat and said to Powell, "You are fired, you are holding up production."
When Powell voiced the quite reasonable question, "How can I hold up production
when I am an inspector ?" Martin answered by saying , "You two cute little apples,
you are fired, turn your badges in." They left the plant and, with McGee, reported
their discharges to Claude Mitchell, the representative of Local 200.
A little later the same morning three other girls were called to the office by Mar-
tin and, one at a time, dismissed. They were Noral Bell Hendrix, Leona Stephenson,
and Bessie Rogers. These interviews were substantially as follows: The findings
being based upon the credible testimony of the employee concerned . ( Martin's
versions , where inconsistent or contrary , are not credited , for reasons fully set forth
in the section next following.)
When Hendrix entered the office, Martin and Bromberg had before them the pic-
tures (attached to application forms) of herself, McGee, Barnes, Stephenson, and
Rogers. Martin told her he had to let her go because she was holding up produc-
tion . Hendrix protested that she was at the end of the production line and could
not very well increase its flow and added, "No, that is not it, it is about the Union."
Obviously referring to the pictures then before him, Martin then asked if she
knew these girls and if they had said anything to her about the Union. She denied
that they had. Martin then declared, "Nora, I wouldn't have thought you would
have done that to us. .. . Hendrix pleaded, "I need work-I have three children
in school." Martin turned to Bromberg and asked "What would you do with her?"
Bromberg said he didn't know , but commented that she was not guilty "until proven
guilty." Upon this Martin told her to go back to her job. When she reached her
machine she asked Foreman Schembari why he had not said anything about her
work-"they said it wasn't satisfactory ." Schembari denied knowing anything about
it. Half an hour later , however , Schembari came to her and told her she was fired.
After Hendrix had been sent back to her job by Martin, Stephenson was called
in. Martin told her they were going to let her go. She asked why. He said, "You
don't know? You see these three girls' pictures?" and pointed to the photographs
of Powell, McGee, and Barnes. "We fired these three girls," he continued, "You
don't know why, do you?" She replied , "I don 't know anything unless it is because
they are trying to get a Union here." Martin then said, "You signed a card then
told you didn't know anything about it and we found out, there are some who you
think are your friends who are your enemies." Schembari then "wrote up" her time
and she went outside the office to wait.
At about the same time Hendrix, leaving the plant, met Mitchell on his way into
the office to protest the dismissals of Powell, McGee, and Barnes. While Mitchell
talked with Martin, Hendrix sat with Powell in a car near the plant, and Stephenson
waited outside Martin's office. Just before Mitchell came out of the office, his
efforts to obtain reinstatement for the three girls having been futile, Hendrix came
back in to the plant to get a cushion used at her place of work. Bromberg called
both Hendrix and Stephenson into the office and told them , "I am going to put you
girls back to work, but don't you give me away for this."
Both Hendrix and Stephenson were permitted to resume work, but each was
"docked" an hour's pay for the time spent in the office.
Also before Mitchell came in to protest against the discharges, Schembari told
employee Bessie Rogers that she was fired because she was not doing enough work.
Rogers challenged his action, pointing out that she worked under Bromberg. Schem-
bari hesitated, then sent her to the office, where Martin and Bromberg were waiting.
Martin asked her if she had any idea why she was there. She said, "No." He
pointed to the pictures of McGee, Powell, and Barnes, and asked Rogers what they
had said to her and she to them. She replied "Nothing" to both questions. He
then asked her if she had signed a union card. She denied it. He told her that an-
other employee had recognized "her face" at the union meeting the afternoon be-
CONCORD SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT CORP. 1879
fore. He then said he had fired the three girls and they had owned up to it. Rog-
ers said, "Regardless of that, I know nothing about it."
She was then permitted to go back to work without loss of pay.
2. The Respondent's claimed reasons for the discharges
As a witness Martin made, in substance, the following claims with reference to
the above-described discharges:
(1) During the first week in September 1953, when he officially assumed full
charge of the plant, he was informed by the company auditor in the New York
office that "production had fallen off very much at the plant" and "two more ship-
ments of bandoleers were defective." This same production information, Martin
admitted on cross-examination, had been sent to the New York office from the
plant itself, in regular weekly reports made by his own assistant , although he denied
having seen them.
(2) Upon receipt of word from the auditor, he began to check "production
sheets"-which he said he "received . . . from the floor every day," and instructed
Schembari, also "during the first week in September" to "watch it carefully the next
few days and if it didn't improve I wanted the name of every person . who was
holding up production." Schembari gave him a list of "twenty or twenty-five people"
and his secretary "pulled cards on every employee on the list."
(3) Upon "pulling" the cards, Martin called "every one in , one at a time."
(4) As to McGee, the first to be called in, when asked by his own counsel what
had been said between them, Martin replied:
I can't tell you exactly. All I can tell you is that I asked Miss McGee "Why
are you holding up production?" It was a short two minute conversation and
I told her I was firing her.
(5) As to Powell and Barnes, Martin testified that when both appeared together
and he told Barnes to leave Powell said she "wanted a witness, or words to that
effect." In reply to that, Martin said, he told them "that they were both fired,"
and both walked out. On cross-examination, immediately after admitting that he
had no objection to Barnes being a witness for Powell, since he intended to tell them
"the same thing," he said he fired Barnes "for disobedience."
(6) With Hendrix and Stephenson, Martin claimed he "had the same conversa-
tion," telling them that they were "holding back production." When they assured
him they would work harder, he decided to give them another chance.
(7) As to Rogers, Martin said, "she was working on suspenders and some of that
operation was of the same nature and we had a definite holdup on that contract."
After telling her she was discharged for "holding up production," he said, he "dis-
cussed it with Mr. Bromberg and decided to give her another chance."
(8) After calling in Rogers, he "went down the list" interviewing other girls
and discharging some of them.
3. Conclusions
No documentary evidence was offered by the Respondent to support Martin's
claims as to production or as to any discharges by him on September 16 other than
those noted above. It is reasonable to believe that had counsel for the Respondent
considered that such regular business records would support Martin's testimony, he
would have offered them as evidence. Clearly it was not incumbent upon General
Counsel to demand their production. In their absence the Trial Examiner can only
infer, in view of Martin's inconsistent and untrustworthy oral testimony on other
points, that the records would not have supported his claimed motives for the
dismissals.
The Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that Martin's claim of low produc-
tion as a motive for his summary action was but a pretext, unsupported by fact,
behind which he endeavored to hide an illegal act designed to discourage member-
ship in the Union. This conclusion is founded upon the following points, among
others, revealed by testimony of the Respondent's own witnesses:
(1) Foreman Schembari's admission that he never complained to any of the
employees here involved about their work, but on the contrary told them that it was
good.
(2) Had Martin actually asked Schembari to provide him with names during the
first week of September, as he testified, and had Schembari given him these names
within 3 or 4 days, as he also testified, the calendar shows that he would have had
the list before September 11. Why, with the list before him, Martin should have
wailed until September 17 to take any remedial action on a matter which he said
1880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his New York auditor was "very much disturbed about ," is glaringly unexplained
in the record.
(3) Martin's admission that he had no objection to Powell 's having Barnes as a
witness. Both Powell and Barnes were inspectors of work produced by others. No
evidence was adduced to show how either of them could have held up production in
any way.
(4) The failure of the Respondent to meet the testimony of McGee regarding
Fields' interview with her the afternoon before the discharges . Not only was no evi-
dence offered to show that Fields was not available as a witness , but Martin ad-
mitted, in response to his own counsel's questions , that he had seen Fields in the
State "briefly " within a week of the hearing. The record shows that the complaint,
specifically alleging interrogation by Fields, was received by the Respondent on
April 15, more than 2 months before the hearing.
In his oral argument , counsel for the Respondent urged:
. it is through Mary McGee's testimony that the Board seeks to rest its
entire case and I submit that if her testimony falls, the entire case must fall.
Assuming the logic of counsel 's argument , the Trial Examiner is confronted with a
record containing McGee's uncontradicted testimony on a crucial issue, the admis-
sion of Martin that within the preceding few days he had seen , even if only "briefly,"
the only individual in a position directly to refute her testimony , and the failure of
the Respondent to call him as a witness or even to offer any reason for not doing so.
(See National Paper Company, 102 NLRB 1569 at 1571.)
In summary , the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged McGee, Powell , Barnes, Hendrix, Stephenson, and Rogers 1
on September 17, 1953, in order to discourage union membership and activity, and
that by these discharges , and by the above-described interrogation and threats uttered
by Martin and Fields concerning union activities, the Respondent interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
B. Other issues
There is credible testimony in the record to the effect that sometime before a
Board election held at the plant early in 1954, Martin told employees that if the
Union came in the plant it would be moved to Mississippi . Thereafter , however, the
Union itself issued a circular for distribution to the employees quoting Martin as
denying that he would make such a move, and there is no evidence that he thereafter
claimed that his denial was a misquotation . In view of the fact that other viola-
tions of the Act, found above, warrant a broad cease and desist order, it appears un-
necessary to make a specific finding of 8 (a) (1) violation in regard to this state-
ment which , in effect, has been remedied by the union circular.
As to the allegation in the complaint that the Respondent "permitted employees
to campaign openly against the Union, in the plant , during working hours," evidence
adduced by General Counsel does not establish that such permission was disparate
or discriminatory . It appears from undisputed testimony that management simply
did not prohibit a few employees from wearing either "Vote No" or "Vote Yes"
signs-and both were worn , shortly before the election.
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 Respondent 's operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce in the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Mary McGee , Margaret Powell , Velma Barnes, Nora Bell
1 Although the complaint does not name Rogers as a dischargee , the circumstances of
Martin's action , admitted by him as a witness , were fully litigated at the hearing. Since
she was immediately thereafter permitted to return to work, and lost no time , no remedial
back pay for her will , of course , be recommended.
EDELEN TRANSFER AND STORAGE COMPANY, INC. 1881
Hendrix, and Leona Stephenson, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Re-
spondent offer McGee, Powell, and Barnes immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their senior-
ity and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned as
wages from the date of such discrimination to the date of offer of reinstatement, less
her net earnings during such period, the back pay to be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289. It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and upon
reasonable request make all pertinent records available to the Board or its agent.
As to Hendrix and Stephenson, it will be recommended that the Respondent make
each of them whole for the loss of pay discriminatorily caused them on September
17, 1953.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission
by the Respondent of similar and other unfair labor practices may be anticipated.
The remedy should be coLextensive with the threat. It will therefore be recommended
that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Aluminum Workers International Union, Local No. 200, A. F. L., is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of its em-
ployees, thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor organization,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (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.]
EDELEN TRANSFER AND STORAGE COMPANY, INC. and CHAUFFEURS,
TEAMSTERS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS , LOCAL UNION No. 621, IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS, AFL.' Case No . 10-CA-1828. December 16,
1954
Decision and Order
Upon a charge filed on October 30, 1953, by the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region, issued a complaint dated November 4,
1953, against Edelen Transfer and Storage Company, Inc., herein
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the
charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the
Respondent and the Union.
i Herein called the Union.
110 NLRB No. 230.