Dale Electronics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1212 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of em-
ployees, or any, term or- condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organiza-
tions , to join or assist the above -named or any other labor organization , to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective . bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent
that such right maybe affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of 'employment , as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, and as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer employee Gary A. Smart immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or- substantially equivalent position ,, and' make him whole for any
loss of earnings he may have , suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him.
MaxACOAL COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , 327 Logan
Building, .500 Union Street ,, Seattle, Washington , Telephone Number , Mutual 2-3300,
if they have any question concerning ,this . notice or compliance with its provisions.
Dale Electronics , Inc. and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and Dale Electronics
Employee Welfare Committee , Party of Interest. Case No.
17-CA-1869. July 10, 1962
DECISION AND. ORDER
On March 27, 1962, Trial Examiner John. F. Funke issued his Inter-
mediate 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 Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report together with a supporting brief, and the Respondent
filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the 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 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the 'exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
137 NLRB No. 129. . .
DALE ELECTRONICS, INC. 1213
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Dale Electronics,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Dale
Electronics Employee Welfare Committee or any other labor organi-
zation, and from otherwise interfering with the representation of its
employees through a labor organization of their own choosing in
violation of Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
(b) Recognizing or bargaining with Dale Electronics Employee
Welfare Committee, or any successor thereto, as the representative of
its employees concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment.
(c) Maintaining in effect a company rule which prohibits employees
from engaging in lawful union activity on company property during
employees' nonworking time.
(d) Conducting a poll among its employees as to whether or not
they favor the continuance of Dale Electronics Employee Welfare
Committee, or any other labor organization not of their own choosing.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join or assist International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re-
frain from engaging in any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely
disestablish the Dale Electronics Employee Welfare Committee as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
' The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent dominated and interfered with the
Dale Electronics Employee Welfare Committee , herein called the Committee , in violation
of Section 8(a) (2) and ( 1) of the Act , and recommended that the Respondent withdraw
and withhold all recognition from and completely disestablish the Committee The Gen-
eral Counsel takes no exception to these conclusions and Recommended Order, but now
seeks to have the Board also find that the Respondent bargained with the Committee con-
cerning hours of employment and conditions of work, and contributed financial and other
support to the 'Committee . In view of our Order herein disestablishing the Committee,
we find it unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel's contentions in this regard
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment or other terms or conditions of employment.
(b) Rescind or, in lieu thereof, revise the company rule which
prohibits employees' union activity on company property during non-
working time so as to make it clear on the face thereof that said rule
,will not be interpreted, applied, or enforced to prohibit or interfere
with lawful union activities on company property during nonworking
time.
(c) Post at its Columbus, Nebraska, plants, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix.' 12 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately 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 its em-
ployees 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 Seventeenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent has violated the Act by conduct other than that found
to be violative herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
I 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, Enforcing an Order."
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 dominate or interfere with the administration of
the Dale Electronics Employee Welfare Committee , or any other
labor organization , or otherwise interfere with the representation
of our employees through a labor organization of their own
choosing.
WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with the Dale Electronics
Employee Welfare Committee , or any successor thereto, and we
hereby disestablish and withdraw recognition from the Commit-
tee as representative of any of our employees for the purpose, in
whole or in part , of dealing with or discussing grievances, labor
DALE ELECTRONICS, INC. 1215
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other terms
of conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT maintain in effect a company rule which prohibits
employees from engaging in lawful union activity on company
property during employees' nonworking time.
WE WILL NOT conduct any poll among our employees as to
whether or not they favor the continuance of Dale Electronics
Employee Welfare Committee or any other labor organization
not of their own choosing.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist the International Union
of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging in any or all such
activities.
DALE ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s' Regional
Office, 1200 Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Mis-
souri, Telephone Number, Baltimore 1-7000, Extension 731, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed October 12, 1961 , by International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,' herein the IUE or the Union ,,the General Counsel
issued a complaint 2 on November 28, 1961 , against Dale Electronics , Inc.,3 herein
Dale or the Respondent . This proceeding , with the General Counsel , the Respondent
and the Charging Party represented, was heard before Trial Examiner John F. Funke
at Columbus , Nebraska, on January 17, 1962.
The complaint alleged that Respondent unlawfully interrogated its employees,
threatened them with economic reprisals for assisting a labor organization, engaged
in or gave the impression of engaging in surveillance of union activity , maintained
in effect an unlawful no-solicitation rule and conducted a poll of its employees, all
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It further alleged that the Respondent
discriminatively enforced its solicitation rule in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act and that Respondent dominated and interfered with Dale Electronics Employee
' An amended charge was filed November 28, 1961.
2 The complaint herein issued against Dale Electronics , Inc., a Division of Hathaway
Instruments , Inc. No objection was made to the appearance of Hathaway Instruments,
Inc, in this proceeding.
3 The name of the Respondent appears as amended at the hearing.
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Welfare Committee, herein called the Committee, a labor organization, in violation
of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
The answer of the Respondent, in the form of a letter, denied the allegations re-
specting interrogation, threats, and surveillance, the discriminative enforcement of
the solicitation rule, and the domination of and interference with the Committee.
It admitted maintaining the solicitation rule and the polling of its employees but
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
At the conclusion of the case the parties were given 35 days in which to file briefs
and briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent on Feb-
ruary 21.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges and the answer admits the Respondent is a corporation
having its principal place of business at Columbus, Nebraska, where it is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electronic resistors. Respondent makes
annual purchases of goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly and
indirectly from sources outside the State of Nebraska. It sells and ships goods and
products valued in excess of $50,000 annually to purchasers outside the State of
Nebraska.
Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I find that the Dale Electronics Employee Welfare Committee is an employee
representation committee in which employees participate and which exists, in whole
or in part, for the purpose of dealing with the employer concerning conditions of
work, as more fully described, infra. Although the Committee did not seek to bar-
gain collectively with Respondent respecting rates of pay or hours of employment
nor did it present grievances through any formal procedure, I find that it met the
standards required by the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Co., 360
U.S. 203.4
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. Violations of Section 8(a) (2)
According to the testimony of Floyd Mason, personnel director of Dale, the Com-
mittee was formed sometime in 1958, when he came across a suggestion that such
a committee be established which had been submitted by an employee named Cecilia
Zoucha. The suggestion had been previously rejected by a predecessor of Mason's
on the ground that such a committee might constitute a violation of the Labor-
Management Relations Act. The suggestion was in writing and read:
I suggest a Welfare Committee which would take care of the complaints of
each worker.
I think some one should be elected from each department. This person would
ask each worker what complaints or suggestions that would make their work
easier and more pleasant. This person would report to each supervisor and he
would turn it over to the Welfare Committee. This committee should meet
once a week with Mr. Risk.5
They would correct the complaints if possible. I think this should work out
very nice as I hear a lot of complaints and some suggestions. But a lot of them
won't turn into the suggestion box, and they won't take their problems to the
Personnel Manager. I think this would make closer contact between manage-
ment and worker and make better moral [sic] among workers.
Mason discussed the suggestion with Bill Gaines, general manager, with two of
the foremen, and finally took it up with Risk. Risk thought it a good idea and told
I The answer does not deny that the Committee Is a labor organization but does deny
that it is a "company-dominated union."
5 Mr. Risk was general manager at that time and later became president of Dale.
DALE ELECTRONICS, INC. 1217
Mason to "go ahead and set it up." As established by Mason the Committee was
comprised of a representative from each department elected by the employees of
that department. When an election is to be held Mason's office makes out slips for
each department. These are given to the department supervisor who distributes and
collects them after the employees have designated their choice. The slips, or ballots,
are then returned to Mason's office where they are counted by his secretary. Only
the production employees are represented; the maintenance employees are excluded.
The total representation for employees is 11 and Mason and Gaines sit with the
Committee as representatives of management.
Meetings of the Committee were originally held once a month but were increased
to every 2 weeks. The Committee meets on alternate Wednesdays at 3:15 p.m. in
the Respondent's conference room. (Supervisors' meetings are also held in this
room and some of the employees use it for a lunchroom.) The meetings usually
last 45 minutes and the members are paid for their time.
Minutes of the meetings between April 19, 1961,6 and January 3, 1962,7 reveal
that the suggestions and complaints discussed were minuscule in scope and trivial in
content. The following selections from the minutes indicate the Committee's charac-
ter and achievements better than a generalized summary:
Complaint or 8uggestion8
Request for more towels in rest rooms___ Number
3500.
Action taken
increased from 3000 to
Request for 1h hour lunch period in
summer.
Request for more western music on
P.A.
Request by night shift that polkas be
played earlier.
Air conditioning too cold_____________
Quality of coffee and cocoa was poor____
Supervisors did not say "Good morning"
to employees.
Ladies' rest rooms were used as lunch
rooms by some employees.
Request for boxed instead of wrapped
candy in machines.
No sugar doughnuts at 9:05 a.m. break__
Not enough sugar and water in the 100
coffee machine.
Denied because employees living in
town could not get home to lunch.
Would be discussed with distributor.
Would be discussed with distributor.
Conditioning would be stabilized.
Vendor would install new machine
shortly.
Obligation was reciprocal-super-
visors did not have to be first.
Practice ordered stopped.
Vendor requested to accommodate.
More sugar doughnuts ordered.
Corrected by vendor.
Temporary layoffs questioned --------- Layoffs were due to lack of mate-
rial-none further were antici-
pated.
Office employees left early ------------ Office clocks were advanced five min-
utes to relieve traffic congestion.
An employee's boy friend "buzzed" the Employee to be requested to have
parking lot at quitting time. her boy friend cease.
Topics of recurring discussion were the condition of the parking lot, requests for
more clocks and complaints, presumably raised by the management representatives,
that employees were not following the proper procedures in production operations.
The minutes were kept by Mason, typed by his secretary and distributed by her.
The funds of the Committee were obtained from receipts from the vending ma-
chines which were purchased by the Committee. They were collected by the lunch-
room attendant and turned over to Dale's receptionist who kept the Committee's
accounts.
2. Violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
Bonnie Bouse ,testified that she attended a union meeting in the early morning hours
of October 5, 1961, at the Evans Hotel. (She was employed on the night shift.) On
the following afternoon when she reported for work she was called to the office of
Personnel Director Mason. There she was shown the Respondent's rule prohibitiing
solicitation in the so-called bluebook which reads asfollows:
0The 10(b) date is April 12, 1961.
7 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2-c through 2-m.
649856-63-vol. 187-78
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SOLICITATION
There shall be no solicitation of memberships, pledges, subscriptions, collec-
tions or solicitation of any petitions other than for company business on com-
pany time or property, except in cases where prior approval in writing has been
given by the personnel director or the general manager.
She was told, according to her testimony, that she had violated this rule by solicit-
ing for the Union on company time and issued a warning slips She told Mason that
she had not solicited on company time and that she had not known of the meeting
until the night before it had taken place. Respecting the Respondent's enforcement
of its rule against solicitation Bouse testified another girl had sold "firemen's tickets"
during working hours; that one girl had sold "yarn dogs" during working hours; that
an employee had sold chances on a shotgun during working hours; that a World
Series pool had been held during working hours.
On October 6 Bouse was laid off and recalled December 20. At the time of her
recall she was again called into Mason's office and in the presence of three other super-
visors requested to sign a slip stating that she understood the solicitation rule and
that she could not solicit for unions or other activity during working hours .9 She
told Mason she intended to abide by the solicitation rule but refused,to sign .the slip
on the ground that she would be signing her "death warrant." Despite her refusal to
sign she returned to work.
Rita Olsufka, like Bouse, attended the union meeting on .the morning of October 5
and was laid off on October 6. When she returned to work for the shift in the after-
noon of October 5 she was called to Mason's office by Reed, asked if she was aware
of the solicitation rule and given a warning slip.10 Unlike Bouse she admitted that she
had engaged in solicitation on company time. She was also asked to identify the
union which was attempting to organize the plant and the union representatives,
which she did. Respecting solicitation on company time Olsufka testified that she was
aware of the sale of yarn dogs (she had bought one herself); the sale of chances for
the shotgun; the sale of chances on the World Series pool.
Floyd Mason, a witness l find credible on the basis of his demeanor and responsive-
ness to questioning both on direct and cross-examination, admitted questioning both
Bouse and Olsufka as to why they desired union representation and to issuing the
warning slips. He denied questioning either of them as to their attendance at the
union meeting and denied interrogating Olsufka as to the identity of the union repre-
sentative. In these denials he was corroborated by Reed, who was present at both
interviews, and whom I also find to be a credible witness. Reed also ,testified that a
material handler had informed him that Bouse had solicited one employee, Dorothy
Anson, to attend the union meeting on October 4.11 He further testified that an
employee named Lonnie Mostek informed him that Olsufka had asked him to attend
the union meeting. Reed reported both Bouse and Olsufka to Mason as having
violated the Company's solicitation rule. The following day, October 5, Mason and
Reed discussed the violations and decided to issue the warning slips to both Bouse
and Olsufka. As to other violators of the solicitation rule, Mason testified that he had
heard of the sale of yarn dogs and ordered it stopped; that an employee named Doris
Skinner was terminated for selling furniture polish on company time; that he heard
of the sale of tickets to the firemen's ball and ordered it stopped; that he probably
bought tickets on ,the World Series pool himself.12 Reed corroborated this testimony
to the extent that he stated he told the employee (Vera Bant) to stop selling yarn
dogs; that he had issued a warning regarding the sale of furniture polish; and that he
had told the operators of the World Series pool to confine the sale of chances to break
time.
The remaining allegation concerning violation of Section 8(a) (1) refers to a poll
taken by Respondent among its employees during the investigation of the unfair labor
practice charges filed herein. Respondent's answer admits that on or about Novem-
ber 21, 1961, it polled its employees to ascertain their response to the following
question:
Our Employee Welfare Committee is being investigated as to whether or not it
is legal. If you want the company to do everything in its power to continue it,
8 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9 This slip stated that she had violated the solicitation
rule and that the next offense would "mean immediate termination "
e General Counsel's Exhibit No. 14
10 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 10
n The fact of solicitation was corroborated by Anson, whom I credit.
12 The Trial Examiner accepts as an established fact the. sale of chances on World
Series pools is a traditional exception to rules barring solicitation, gambling, etc., both
in industry and Government.
DALE ELECTRONICS , INC. 1219
vote yes on the slip of paper you have been given . If you don't feel it is worth
fighting for, vote no.
The results of the poll , as reported in the lead article of the Dale -e-News, showed
404 for the Committee , 17 against.13
The above summarizes the pertinent facts of the case.
B. Conclusions
I find that Respondent dominated and interfered with the Committee in violation
of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. Although the Committee was formed more than 6
months prior to the filing on the charge herein so that the formation cannot be found
to be an unfair labor practice I accept the testimony of Mason that he was instructed
to establish the Committee as evidence of Respondent 's policy toward the Committee.
The Committee was created as Respondent 's creature and remained Respondent's
creature . This is demonstrated by the fact that election procedures were established
by the Respondent and by the participation in the procedures by Respondent's
supervisors and Mason's secretary . Although Mason asserted that he and Gaines
met with the Committee rather than as members of it I find this distinction more a
question of semantics rather than of substance . The Committee , on the record
herein, held no meetings other than those at which Mason and Gaines or their sub-
stitutes were present and had no independent existence . The minutes of the meetings
were kept by Mason , typed by his secretary , and then distributed to the employee
representatives . Although the funds of the Committee were derived from the vend-
ing machines which it owned , the collections were made by the lunchroom attend-
ent (not a production employee ) and the books were kept by the Respondent's
receptionist . The Committee met on company property and on company time,
privileges extended by the Respondent in violation of its own rule against solicitation.
The evidence is clearly sufficient to establish a violation of Section 8(a) (2).14
It is equally clear that the solicitation rule, as drafted , unlawfully restricted the
employees in their right to engage in union activity on company property during
nonworking time.15 I do not find , however, that Respondent discriminatively en-
forced the rule in violation of Section 8,(a) (3) of the Act. While Bouse and Olsufkp
were given warning slips for engaging in union solicitation whereas other employees
were merely told to stop other forms of solicitation , one employee was discharged
for disobedience of the rule . In any event I do not find this disparity of treatment
sufficient in import to warrant finding an independent and separate violation of
Section 8(3).
Having found that the Respondent , by dominating and interfering with the
administration of the Committee, coerced and restrained its employees I accordingly
find that a poll taken to discover whether or not the employees favored the continu-
ance of the Committee inevitably tainted with such coercion and restraint and a viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (1).16
The other allegations of the complaint I find are not supported by a preponderance
of credible testimony. The interrogation of Bouse and Olsufka occurred in the
course of a proper inquiry concerning their conduct during working time. There is
no evidence that Respondent engaged in surveillance and, in view of my resolution
of the credibility issue in favor of Mason and Reed where their testimony is in con-
flict with that of Bouse and Olsufka, I find that there was no impression given of
surveillance nor were any threats of reprisal made.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The scope of the recommended order will be appropriately confined to providing a
remedy for the violations found and will not be designed to prevent further and
unrelated unfair labor practices which may not be reasonably anticipated from the
record herein . See N.L .R.B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426, at p. 433.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon the entire record
in this case , I make the following:
"General Counsel's Exhibit No. 8
14 Beiser Aviation Corporation, 135 NLRB 433
15 In reaching this conclusion I have considered the testimony of Mason respecting the
instructions to supervisors which permitted employees to engage in union activity on their
own time. ( General Counsel ' s Exhibit No. 5.)
10 Offner Electronics, Inc, 134 NLRB 1064.
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Dale Electronics , Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Dale Electronics Employee Welfare Committee is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By dominating and interfering with the administration of the Dale Electronics
Employee Welfare Committee and by giving support to it Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
5. By maintaining in effect a solicitation rule which prohibits solicitation on com-
pany property Respondent has engaged in interference , restraint, and coercion in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. By conducting a poll of its employees for the purpose of determining whether or
not they wished the Company to continue the Dale Electronics Employee Welfare
Committee the Respondent engaged in interference , restraint , and coercion within the
meaning of Section 8 (a),(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Sakrete of Northern California, Inc. and Freight, Construction,
General Drivers and Helpers, Local 287, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America. Case No. 30-CA-2069. July 10, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
THE TRIAL EXAMINER
On April 6, 1962, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, recommending
dismissal of the complaint for jurisdictional reasons, as set forth in
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Charging
Party and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port together with supporting briefs and a request by the General
Counsel that this case be remanded to the Trial Examiner.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing in connection with the jurisdictional issue and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case. We find merit
in the exceptions, and, accordingly, do not adopt the Trial Examiner's
conclusions or recommendations, but only his findings of fact which
are not inconsistent with our Decision and Order herein.
137 NLRB No. 131.