Di Giorgio Leisure Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 570 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bell Manufacturing Division , I3 Giorgio , Leisure
`Products, Inc. and Teamsters,' Chauffeurs , Ware=,
housemen and Helpers Limon, 'Local No. `448,
International 'Bi otherhood ,.-of Teamsters, Chauf
feurs, , Warehousemen and ' Helpers sof America,
Independent. Case... l9-CA-477.7.? ,
August 11, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND
KENNEDY
On March 29,197 1, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner
issued his Decision 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
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices and recommended that the
allegations in complaint pertaining thereto be dis-
missed . Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief; and the General Counsel filed an answering
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
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.2 The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings,3 conclusions,4 and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, except as noted herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Bell Manufacturing Division, Di
Giorgio Leisure Products, Inc., Kalispell, Montana,
its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegation relating
to interrogation at a meeting of employees contained
in paragraph 12(c) of the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
i This case was consolidated by the Regional Director for hearing with
192 NLRB No. 77
Case 19-RC-5356, and Trial Examiner made rulings and recommendations
with respect to certain objections filed by the Union to conduct affecting
the results of, the,, election held-on May 1, 1970, pursuant to an Agreement
for Consent Election. Concerning the objections , Sec. 102.62(a) of the
Board's Rules and Regulations provides that in the case of a cogsent-
election - agreement of the type,,, involved herein "the rulings and
determinations by the regional director of the results thereof shall be final.
On June 7, 1971, the Board issued an order serving these cases and
remanding the representation case to the Regional Director for'further
processing by him in accordance with the terms of the consent-election
agreement . Respondent's opposition to this order is without merit and its
motion for reconsideration , filed on June 17, 1971, is consequently denied.
On July 2, 1971, the Regional Director issued a Supplemental Report on
Objections and Order Setting Aside Election . On July 16, 1971,
Respondent filed with the Board a motion for reconsideration of the
Regional Director's supplemental report, asserting that the procedure
followed in this proceeding is inconsistent with "the principle of due
process of law." We deny this motion as lacking in merit . See Ayer Lar
Sanitarium, 175 NLRB No. 119, In. 1; 179 NLRB No. 94, enfd. 436 F.2d
45 (CA. 9).
2 We have carefully examined the record evidence, including the
exhibits, and find no merit in the Respondent's assertion of bias or lack of
diligence on the part of the Trial Examiner . Concerning the Trial
Examiner's credibility findings , it is the Board's established policy not to
overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the
clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544,
enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We find no basis for reversing his findings
herein.
2 In finding that the Respondent had knowledge of the employees' union
activity at all critical times herein , we do not rely upon the testimony of
Bill Soderstrom concerning his asserted conversation with Ostrum on
March 26.
4 In the attendant circumstances , we agree with the Trial Examiner that
the Respondent's interrogation of employees Westphal and Bjork was
coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEO F. LIGHTNER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was
heard before me in Kalispell, Montana, on October 20, 21,
and 22, 1970, on the complaint of General Counsel, as
amended, and the answer, as amended, of Bell Manufactur-
ing Division, Di Giorgio Leisure Products, Inc., herein
called the Respondent.' The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended , 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act. Resolution of the objections filed
by Petitioner is set forth infra The parties waived oral
argument, and briefs filed by General Counsel and
Respondent have been carefully considered.
i The name of the Respondent was amended at the outset of the hearing
to correctly reflect its identity.
A charge herein was filed on May 6. A complaint was issued on June 22,
and amended at the outset of the hearing herein . Pursuant to an
Agreement for Consent Election, approved by the Regional Director for
Region 19 on April 15, an election was conducted on May 1. Petitioner
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election on
May 7. On June 22, the Regional Director found that Petitioner's
objections raise substantial or material issues which could best be resolved
by a formal bearing and on June 22 ordered a consolidation of the cases
BELL MFG., DIV. -DI GIORGIO LEISURE PRODUCTS, INC. 571
Upon the entire record,2 and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a California corporation. Bell Manufac-
turing Division is one of five divisions, and the only one
with which we are herein concerned. This division is located
on the,-outskirts, of Kalispell, Montana, where it is involved
in the manufacture and distribution of recreational
vehicles. During,fbe calendar year immediately preceding
the issuance of thecomplaint,.,a representative period, in
the course . and , conduct of the operation of the Bell
Manufacturing Division, Respondent purchased more than
$50,000 worth of goods ,directly from outside the, Stateof
Montana and sold products in excess of , $50,000 to
customers located,, outside the State of Montana.' The
complaint alleges, they answer admits, and, .l find that
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of,Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
Union, Local, No. 448, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, ^ Chauffeurs,-'Warehousemen &_ Helpers of
America,, Independent„herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning_of Section 2(5),of the Act.,
III. THE ALLEGED- UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES'
The Issues
The principal issues raised bythe complaint and-answer
and Btigated'at the hearing are whether the' Respondent: (1)
engaged in-conduct constituting interference, restraint, and
coercion, thus'violative of Section 8(a^)(1) of the Act, by (a)
Jack Mulford, general manager, on or about March 24,
threatening an employee that anyone talking union in the
shop is going to go down the road [be-discharged]; (b) Glen
Kerzman, production manager, on or about March,31,
inteirogatmg''employees about their union activity; (c) by
L.R. Ostrom,, vice president, at meetings of employees on
March 27-or' April 30, info- ing'employees that Respon-
dent was awa`r'e `that the employees were talking about
UJnionsp^and'before,permitting that to happen Respondent
would 'bring in its own trailer union, announcing a general
wage increase, interrogating employees about their union
activity; threatening .employees with reprisals and loss of
benefits,. in-the° event the union was voted in,,,-,advising
employees that if the Union came in they- would not be
treated like;' human` beings but more ;like machines, that
physical examinations would bejrequired and that two who
could-not