Consolidated American Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 5, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1521 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN SERVICES, INC. 1521
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fourth
Floor, the 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, Telephone No.
TL 6-1782, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Consolidated American Services , Inc. and Fairbanks Joint Craft
Council. Case No. 19-CA-p698. October 5, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 19, 1964, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at-the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modification.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent's refusal to
bargain with the Union on and after August 9, 1963, violated Section
8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion however,
we rely upon the rationale as set forth in the Board's decision in
Maintenance, Incorporated, 148 NLRB 1299.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts, as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Consolidated Ameri-
can Services, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
MEMBER LEEDOM, concurring :
For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Maintenance
Incorporated, 148 NLRB 1299, I agreed with the majority that
Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union on and after August
9, 1963, violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
148 NLRB No. 149.
760-577-65-vol . 149 --97
1522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on August 15, 1963,1 by Fairbanks Joint Craft Council,
herein called the Council, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein respectively called the General Counsel 2 and the Board, through the then
acting Regional Director for Region 19 (Seattle, Washington), issued a complaint,
dated October 7, against Consolidated American Services, Inc., Hawthorne, Cali-
fornia, herein called Respondent, alleging that Respondent has engaged in and is
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, from time to time, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the- charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served on Re-
spondent and copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon
the Council.
Specifically, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged that (1) for some-
time prior to July the United States Air Force, herein called,the Air Force, had a
written contract with Budson Company, Inc, herein called Budson, whereby the
latter was to perform certain operations and maintenance services at the nontechnical
facilities, the Bachelor Officers' Quarters, and the motor vehicle garage at Donnelly
Flats, Alaska, and at the cable shed at Fort Greely, Alaska; (2) pursuant to a con-
sent-election agreement between Budson and the Council,3 a mail-ballot election
was- conducted under the auspices of the Regional Director for Region 19 among
Budson's employees in a certain appropriate unit; (3) on May 28 the Council was
selected and designated as the statutory collective-bargaining representative by a ma-
-jority of the employees in said unit ; (4) on June 6 the said Regional Director, for
and on behalf of the Board, certified the Council as such representative; (5) on or
about June 1 the Air Force awarded Respondent the contract, covering the same
services which Budson had previously performed for the Air Force; (6) on July 1,
when Respondent commenced operations under its aforementioned contract with the
Air Force, it utilized a work force of 23 persons, excluding the support manager;
assistant manager, and secretary; (7) of the aforesaid 23 persons initially employed
by Respondent under the aforementioned Air Force contract, 21, including the 2
supervisors, had been Budson's Donnelly Flats and Fort Greely employees; (8) of
the 18 Respondent's employees in the unit for which the Council had been certified
as the statutory collective-bargaining representative, 16 of them had been Budson's
employees at the time of the certification; (9) by August 24 Respondent had a work
force of 20 employees, excluding the support manager, assistant manager, and
secretary; (10) of the said 20 persons, including both supervisors, employed by
Respondent on August 24, 16 of them were Budson employees at the time of
aforementioned certification; (11) since July 1 the Council has been the duly desig-
nated collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the unit
found appropriate in Case No. 19-RC-3231; (12) by letter dated July 24 the
Council requested Respondent to bargain collectively with it on behalf of the em-
ployees in the unit found in Case No. 19-RC-3231 to be appropriate; and (13) since
August 9, Respondent has refused to recognize and bargain with the Council.
On October 15 Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the
unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held at Seattle, Washington, on January 6,
1964, before Trial Examiner Howard Myers. The General Counsel and Respondent
were represented by Counsel who participated in the hearing. Full and complete
opportunity was afforded the parties to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses,
to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally on the record at the
conclusion of the taking of the evidence, and to file briefs on or before February 3,
1964.4 Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from Respondent's
counsel which have been carefully considered.5
i Unless otherwise noted, all dates mentioned herein refer to 1963
2 This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing
3 Being Case No 19-RC-3231.
4At the request of Respondent's counsel the time to file briefs was extended to Febru-
ary 17, 1964
5After the close of the hearing the General Counsel moved to correct certain in-
accuracies appearing in the stenographic transcript of the hearing The motion is hereby
granted and the motion papers, copies of which were duly served upon Respondent's
counsel, are received in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No 1.
CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN SERVICES, INC . 1523
Upon the record as a whole and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following: -
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS
Respondent, a California corporation, has its offices and principal place of business
at Hawthorne, California, where, as a multiple corporate entity, it is engaged, among
other things, in the business of providing maintenance and operational work for the
United States Department of Defense. During its last calendar or fiscal year,
Respondent's out-of-State dollar volume of sales and services amounted in excess of
$50,000. During the same period, Respondent's out-of-State purchases of goods and
materials exceeded $50,000. During the same period, Respondent also performed
work for the United States Air Force, the United States Army, and for the United
States Navy valued at more than $2,000,000.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, I find, in line with established Board author-
ity, that Respondent is engaged in, and during all times material was engaged in,
business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
and that its business operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the asser-
tion of jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Council is a labor organization whose affiliated unions admit to membership
employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The pertinent facts
For some time prior to July 1, 1963, Budson had a written contract with the Air
Force whereby Budson was to supply support services to certain Air Force buildings
at'Donnelly Flats tracking site and to certain Air Force buildings at Fort'Greely.
On March 25 the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, filed a
petition with the Board (Case No. 19-RC-323) on its behalf and also on behalf of
Plumbers Union Local 375, Operating Engineers Local 302, Carpenters Local 1243,
Laborers Local 942, Sheet Metal Workers Local 72, Roofers Local 238, Painters
Local 1555, Electrical Workers Local 1547, Culinary Workers Local 879, Plasterers
and Cement Masons Local 912, Teamsters Local 959, and Ironworkers Local 751,6
seeking to have the Council certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen-
tative for all Budson's Donnelly Flats and Fort Greely maintenance employees ex-
cluding administrative, technical, and professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
On March 27, the aforesaid petition was amended to describe the appropriate unit
to be all Budson's Donnelly Flats and Fort Greely maintenance operation employees,
excluding clerical, administrative, and professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
On June 6, the Regional Director for Region 19, pursuant to the results of a con-
sent election among the employees within the appropriate unit which election was
conducted under his supervision, certified, for and on behalf of the Board, the Council
as the statutory representative, for the purposes of collective bargaining, of all Bud-
son's employees within the appropriate unit.
On May 27, Respondent submitted to the Air Force a bid for the work and services
rendered by Budson, whose contract was, by its terms, to expire at midnight on
June 30.
The following day, May 28, Respondent's bid was accepted by the Air Force and
Respondent was awarded the contract to perform the work at Donnelly Flats and
Fort Greely at the expiration of Budson's contract.
Upon being awarded the aforementioned contract, Respondent sent to certain
officials of the Air Forces stationed at Air Forces' Donnelly Flats and Fort Greely
facilities application forms and notices to be distributed by them to those Budson
employees who "desired to remain at [these] operations." Those Budson employees
who signed Respondent's employment application cards were later interviewed by
Leonard Fosburg, Respondent's support manager.
8 These named labor organizations compose the Council.
1524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Budson ceased work at midnight on June 30 at the aforesaid Donnelly Flats and
Fort Greely sites and Respondent commenced work thereat 1 minute later with 23
employees. Of these 23 persons, 21 of them, including the 2 supervisors, were re-
tained from Budson's employment.
As of the commencement of work at the said sites on July 1, Respondent had 18
employees in the aforementioned appropriate unit, 16 of whom were retained from
Budson's employ.
The credited testimony clearly establishes that (1) as of 12:01 a.m. on July 1, the
two supervisors retained by Respondent from Budson's employ held the same posi-
tions which they had held under Budson and since July 1 have continued to perform
the same duties which they had performed for Budson; (2) the Budson employees
retained by Respondent continued to perform substantially the same duties which
they had performed for Budson; (3) Respondent used the same facilities, equipment,
and tools Budson had used and continues to use them; (4) the facilities, equipment,
and tools Budson had used were Air Force property and the same facilities, equipment,
and tools were turned over to Respondent by the Air Force at the time Respondent
commenced operations under the aforementioned contract with the Air Force; and
(5) Respondent continues, with minor exceptions, to perform the same operations
which Budson had performed for the Air Force at Donnelly Flats and Fort Greely.
In fact, the credited evidence discloses that Donald Bailey, Budson's Donnelly Flats
power plant supervisor who was retained as such by Respondent, "signed off the log"
at midnight on June 30 when Budson ceased operations there and "signed in" the
log 1 minute later when Respondent commenced operations. It is, thus clear, and
find, that there was no break in operations between the time Budson ceased operations
.and Respondent commenced to perform under its contract with the Air Force.7
Under date of July 24, the Council wrote Respondent as follows:
Please be advised that this Council, pursuant to an election held in May of
this year was designated and selected by the operation and maintenance em-
ployees at Donnelly Flats and Fort Greely, Alaska, as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining. The Fairbanks Joint Crafts Council was
certified as such by the National Labor Relations Board on June 6, 1963.
On the basis of the above, and since your corporation is successor employer
to the Budson Company, of the certified unit in question, we are herewith re-
questing that a mutually acceptable date be scheduled for.purposes of collective
bargaining. We would suggest 'that a meeting be held sometime during the
latter part of August and trust your corporation officers commitments are not
such as to preclude confirmation of a firm date during the time suggested.
An early reply will be most gratefully appreciated.
Under date of August 9, Respondent replied as follows:
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 24 July 1963 notifying
our Company of your request to represent and bargain for the operation and
maintenance employees working for Consolidated American Services, Inc. at
the North Pacific Tracking Station, Donnelly Flats, Alaska. Youi claim of
representation of these employees is complete news to this Company. When
we surveyed personnel and work practices at Donnelly Flats last spring, no
mention was made to us of any pending election. Until we received your letter,
our Company had never been notified that any election was held; therefore, we
cannot be held obligated for a commitment to which we were not a part to. To
date, we have been unable to verify that the NLRB has certified your organiza-
tion to represent these employees, or if these employees are the ones who pre-
sumably voted in an election.
You are probably aware that Consolidated American Services, Inc. has no
legal relationship with the Budson Company. Therefore, we cannot be con-
sidered as a successor employer in the same context as a company who acquires
ownership of a going concern where the surviving concern must assume those
obligations of the other. We are advised by the council that the effect of being
7It is true, as the credited evidence reveals, that very slight, immaterial operations
which Budson was obligated to perform Respondent was not required to perform. For
example, Budson had to maintain certain transportation services for some 300 Philco per-
sonnel and other corporation employees who were working for the Air Force at the
.aforesaid sites. Respondent did not have to perform this service because on and after
July 1, there were but three or four Philco employees on the job and these persons obtain
their transportation elsewhere. In addition , Respondent made certain job classification
changes and changed the pay scales of certain employees from those established by Budson.
CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN SERVICES, INC. 1525
awarded a contract for providing maintenance at the Pacific Tracking Station
establishes our Company as a new entity not encumbered by any agreement
made by the previous contractor.
We recognize our responsibility to our employees and we believe we have been
faithful to them. At the time each employee was hird, they accepted employ-
ment as offered. I am advised that no usual working conditions exist now that
was not known at the time of hire. Since our contract with the United States
Air Force is a fixed price, we cannot afford the luxury of a week's visit to beau-
tiful Alaska. Therefore, we must decline your offer to visit with you for the
purpose of negotiation since no requirement to our knowledge justifies such a
request.
By August 24, Respondent had utilized a work force of 20 employees. Of these
20, including both supervisors, 16 were retained from Budson. Of the 16 Budson
employees retained by Respondent as of August 24, 12 of them were employed within
the aforementioned appropriate unit at the time of the Board's certification.
B. Concluding findings
It is well settled that a Board certification must be honored for a reasonable period
of time, normally 1 year, in the absence of unusual circumstances.8 Neither a change
in ownership nor turnover in the composition of the certified unit are such unusual
circumstances as to effect the force of the certification. Where the enterprise remains
substantially the same, as here, the obligation of the prior employer to bargain with
the certified bargaining representative devolves upon his successor in interest .9
Under the circumstances of this case, the various contentions advanced by Re-
spondent for its refusal to recognize and bargain with the Council as the represen-
tative of the employees here involved are without merit. There can be no dispute
that the effectiveness of a certification during the I-year period is not necessarily
limited to the particular employer operating the business at the date of its issuance.
A certification during its 1-year period runs with the employing industry and the
certification is binding upon the employer assuming said business. Thus, for example,
in N.L.R.B. v. Blair Quarries, Inc., 152 F. 2d 25, the Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, applying the foregoing rule, held that a bona fide lessee of an
enterprise who continued to operate the business with a substantial number of the
lessor's working force and supervisory personnel was under a duty to honor an other-
wise valid certification issued while the lessor had operated the enterprise. The
rationale underlying this holding has been stated by the Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit in its frequently cited opinion in N.L.R.B. v. Arthur J. Colten and Abe
1. Colman d,/b/a Kiddie Kover Manufacturing Company, 105 F. 2d 179 (at p. 183),
in these words:
. It is the employing industry that is sought to be regulated and brought within
the corrective and remedial provisions of the Act in the interest of industrial
peace .... .
It needs no demonstration that the strife which is sought to be averted is no
less an object of legislative solicitude when contract, death , or operation of law
brings about a change of ownership in the employing agency.
Accordingly, where the "employing industry," as here, remains essentially the
same after a transfer from one employer to another, the certification continues for
its normal operative period with undiminished vitality and the successor employer
is under an obligation to honor the certification and bargain with the certified labor
organization.10 It cannot be said that change in the legal ownership of a business
enterprise in itself imports a change in the employees' choice of bargaining
representative.
8 Ray Brooks v. N L.R B., 348 U.S. 96.
- ° Ugste Gas Incorporated, 126 NLRB 494; Firchau Logging Company, Inc, 126 NLRB
1215; N.L.R B. v. Albert Armato and Wire & Sheet Metal Specialty Co., 199 F. 2d 800
(C.A. 7) ; Royal Brand Cutlery Company, a Division of Brockelman Brothers, Inc., 122
NLRB 901. See also Rohlik, Inc, 145 NLRB 1236, and cases cited therein.
10 See, for example, N.L R.B. v. National Garment Company, 166 F. 2d 233 (C.A. 8) ;
N.L.R.B. v. Albert Armato and Wire & Sheet Metal Specialty Co., supra; N.L.R.B. v.
Blair Quarries, Inc., supra; N.L.R.B. v. Hoppes Manufacturing Company, 170 F. 2d 962
(C.A 6) ; N.L.R.B. v. O'Keefe and Merritt Manufacturing Company, at at., d/b/a Pioneer
Electric Co., 178 F. 2d 445 (C.A. 9) ; Union Drawn Steel Company and Repubiio Steel
Corporation v. N.L.R.B, 109 F. 2d 587 (C.A. 3).
1526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the entire record, I find that by refusing to bargain with the
Council on and after August 9, 1963,11 Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. I further
find that by such acts and conduct, Respondent has interferred with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) thereof.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the business operations of Respondent as described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and, such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor prac-
tices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Council
as the statutory bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit,
it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered, upon request, to bargain col-
lectively with the Council and, in the event an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
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 Council and its constituent locals are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
3. Since June 6, 1963, the Council has been and now is the statutory collective-
bargaining representative of all Respondent's Donnelly Flats and Fort Greely em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act:
All Respondent's operation and maintenance employees at its job sites at Donnelly
Flats and Fort Greely, Alaska, excluding all office, clerical, administrative, technical,
and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
4. By refusing since August 9, 1963, to bargain collectively with the Council, as
the statutory bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, Consolidated Ameri-
can Services, Inc., Hawthorne, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Council as the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in the following appropriate unit:
All Respondent's operation and maintenance employees at its job sites at Donnelly
Flats and Fort Greely, Alaska, excluding all office clerical, administrative, technical,
and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act except
in a manner permitted by the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
"The date of Respondent's letter to the Council.
CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN SERVICES, INC. 1527
- 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the poliices of
the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Council as the statutory bargaining
representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit, with respect
to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding
reached.
(b) Post at its establishments at Donnelly Flats and Fort Greely, Alaska, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 12 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for Region 19 (Seattle, Washington), shall, after
being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not alerted, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the
receipt of this Decision what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.I3
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the receipt of
this Decision, Respondent notifies said Regional Director, in writing, that it will
comply with the above Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board
issue an order requiring it to take such action.
12 In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 be 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."
131n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with Fairbanks Joint Craft Council
as the exclusive statutory bargaining representative of all employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and, if
an understanding, is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
the bargaining unit is:
All Respondent's operation and maintenance employees at its jobsites at
Donnelly Flats and Fort Greely, Alaska, excluding all office, clerical, ad-
ministrative, technical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined by the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the above-named labor organization,
or with any of its constituent locals, to bargain collectively with us, or refuse to
bargain with said organization, as the exclusive representative of our employees
in the bargaining unit set forth above, or engage in any like or related acts or
conduct.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, 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 organi-
zation as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as amended.'
1528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become or remain or refrain from becoming mem-
bers of the above-named Union , or any other labor organization , except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a) (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN SERVICES, INC.,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. Mutual 2-3300,
Extension 553, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Northside Sportswear, Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, Local No . 694, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 12-CA-2817
and 12-CA-2846. October 5, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 16, 1964, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act 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 and
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and supporting briefs. The Charging Party, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, Local No. 694, AFL-CIO, adopted the General
Counsel's exceptions and brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, 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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner 2
1 The Trial Examiner inadvertently reports the date Dyess gave union cards as Novem-
ber 18 instead of November 19, 1963.
g The findings of the Trial Examiner are essentially based on resolutions of credibility
issues in the case. It is well settled Board practice not to overrule a Trial Examiner's
resolutions as to credibility , except where the clear preponderance of all the relevant evi-
dence convinces us that the Trial Examiner ' s resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, 545, enfd . 198 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3). No such conclu-
sion is warranted in this case.
148 NLRB No. 150.