Essex Die Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 959 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

ESSEX DIE CORPORATION 959
It has been found that the Union violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the
Act by maintaining with the Company an illegal practice which required that the
Company's employees have membership in or clearance by the Union as a condition
of their employment, by notifying Jones and Zupan that they would lose their jobs
because they were not members of the Union, and by requiring the Company to
terminate the employment of Jones and Zupan. I shall therefore recommend that
the Union cease and desist from maintaining such practice or enforcing or giving
effect to any agreement therefor.
On or about June 4, 1954, the Union notified the Company that it had no objec-
tion to the employment of Jones and Zupan. A statement of such notification was
noted on the record at the hearing on September 14 in the presence of Jones and
Zupan, and they were further directly advised at that time. Back pay is thus limited
to September 14,7 and I further recommend that the Union make said employees
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered from February 18 to September
14, 1954, inclusive, by reason of the discriminatory action aforementioned by pay-
ment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally
have earned less his net earnings ,8 which sum shall be computed 9 on a quarterly
basis.
The violations of the Act which the Union committed are persuasively related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commis-
sion in the future is to be anticipated from the Union's conduct in the past. The
preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with
the threat. In order, therefore, to make more effective the interdependent guar-
antees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby
minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate
the policies of the Act, I shall recommend that the Union be ordered to cease and
desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local 182, Utica, New York and Vicinity, AFL, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
3. By causing The Lane Construction Corporation to discriminate in regard to
hire, tenure, terms, and conditions of employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, the Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (2) 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.]
7 Local Union 595, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL (R Clinton Construction Company), 109 NLRB 73.
8 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440 . See also Republic Steel Corporation v.
N L. R B, 311 U. S. 7.
9 F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294.
ESSEX DIE CORPORATION and DISTRICT 65, DISTRIBUTIVE , PROCESSING
AND OFFICE WORKERS OF AMERICA, IND . Case No. 2-CA-2666.
March 16,1955
Decision and Order
On November 24, 1953, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
111 NLRB No. 158.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and a supporting brief.
The Board has considered herein only the question of whether the
Respondent's operations meet the requirements of its newly adopted
jurisdictional standards.
The record' discloses that the Respondent, a New York corporation
with its office and place of business in New York City, is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of leather cutting dies and re-
lated products. During the year ending August 31, 1952, the Re-
spondent purchased materials valued at in excess of $5,000, of which
approximately 5 percent was shipped in interstate commerce to its
plant from outside the State of New York. During the same period
the Respondent sold goods valued at $52,245, of which $12,551 was
shipped to points outside the State. The record further discloses that
during the year ending June 30, 1954, the Respondent purchased ma-
terials valued at $10,455, of which $7,343 was purchased from firms
outside the State. During the same year, the Respondent sold goods
valued at $85,197, of which $19,708 was shipped to points outside the
State.
As it appears from the above that the Respondent's operations do
not meet the jurisdictional requirements set forth in Jonesboro Grain
Drying Cooperative,2 we find that it will not effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case, and we shall therefore dis-
miss the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
'inasmuch as none of the parties has responded to the Board 's notice to show cause
why certain stipulations entered into by the General Counsel and Respondent subsequent
to the hearing herein should not be made a part of the record, such stipulations are, ac-
cordingly, made a part of the record.
3 110 NLRB 481
MERCK & Co., INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGI-
NEERS, LOCAL 68, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-7179. March
16,1955
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur Younger, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
111 NLRB No. 160.