Crescent Bed Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 21, 1938

9 N.L.R.B. 433 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of CRESCENT BED COMPANY , INC. and FEDERAL LABOR_
UNION No. 21176 , METAL BED MAKERS , AFFILIATED wI'I'H AMERICAN-
FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-. 34.Decided October 01, 1938
Metal Bed and Studio Couch Manufacturing hidustry-Interference, Restrain,
and Coercion : lav-off; to discourage membership in union-Discrhnination: dis-
charge of one employee . for union membership and activity; to discourage
membership in union-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pau: awarded.
Mr. Berdon M. Bell, for the Board.
Curtis, Hall &, Fostei,, by Mr. John C. Foster, and 1llr. Henr.y-
Curtis, of New Orleans, La., for the respondent.
Mr. Richard H. Meigs, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed and later amended by Federal Labor Union..-
No., 21'176, Metal Bed Makers, herein called the Union, the National
Laboi•'Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles H. Logan,.
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans,_
Louisiana), issued its complaint dated December 6, 1937, against
Crescent Bed Company, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, herein called-
the respondent, alleging-that the respondent had engaged in and is_
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the-
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act..
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint charged, in,
substance, (1) that the'respondent had, through threats of dismissal
or other intimidation, discouraged membership in the Union, and (2)
that the respondent discharged and has at all times since failed and-
ref used to reinstate Turner Ponthier, an employee of its New Orleans:
plant for the reason that said Turner Ponthier engaged in the forma-
tion of the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other em-.
ployees,for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid!
,9 N. ;L. R. B., No. 39. -
433 .
434 NATIONAL LABOR ItELATI,ONS BOARD
or protection. The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing
were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
On December 11, 1937, the respondent filed a special appearance
to except to the jurisdiction and authority of the Board, and a mo-
tion to dismiss the complaint and the proceeding on the ground that
its employee, Turner Ponthier, out of whose discharge the complaint
arose, had been employed as a punch press operator in the Iron
Bed Department in connection with one stage of the manufacture
of the respondent's products, and in such capacity he had no con-
nection with the interstate activities of the respondent in the im-
portation of its raw materials or in the exportation of its,finished
products, and, hence, his employment, or discharge is not subject, to
the control or supervision of the Board under the provisions of the
Act. The respondent also filed an answer to the complaint, admit-
ting that it was engaged in interstate commerce, but denying that
it had engaged in or was engaging in unfair labor practices and re-
questing that the complaint be dismissed. Both of the respondent's
aforesaid motions to dismiss were denied.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New Orleans, Louisiana,
Ton December 18, -1937, before Eugene P. Lacy, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board The Board and the respondent-were
.represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
At the hearing counsel for the Board made a motion that the ad-
missions in the respondent's answer to the complaint be taken as
evidence in the case.- This motion was granted by the Trial Ex-
aininer. A motion made by counsel for the respondent at the con-
clusion of;the Board's case to dismiss the case for lack of evidence
vas denied by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hear-
ing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Ex