F. P. Young Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 12, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1570 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. P. Young Company and Francis P. Young Coal. Company and
Paul Baione , An Individual.
F. P. Young Company and Francis P. Young Coal Company and
General Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Helpers and Yardmen, Local
No. 470, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases
Nos. 4-CA-3006 and 4-RC-5540. May 10, 1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
On February 12, 1964, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his.
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond
ent 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision
and a supporting 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom 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 Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the Trial Exam-
iner's findings,' conclusions, and recommendations, with the following
addition:
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by discharging employees Baione
and Beck on June 10, 1963, because they had engaged in union activity.
In Case No. 4-RC-5540, consolidated herewith by Order of the Re-
gional Director, an election was held in accordance with a Decision
and Direction of Election among the employees of the Employer, the
Respondent herein. A tally of ballots furnished to the parties on
September 17, 1963, showed that of approximately 17 eligible voters,
17 ballots were cast, of which 7 cast valid ballots for, and 8 cast valid
ballots against, the Petitioner, the Union herein, and that the ballots
of Baione and Beck were challenged by the Respondent. These chal-
1 The Respondent has excepted to the credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner.
It Is the Board ' s established policy, however , not to overrule a Trial Examiner ' s resolu-
tions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance
of all 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).
146 NLRB No. 181.
F. P. YOUNG CO. AND FRANCIS P. YOUNG COAL CO . 1571
lenges were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election,
and raised the same issues as are involved in the complaint proceeding.
As we have found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged em-
ployees Baione and Beck in violation of Section 8(a) (3), and as they
were therefore employees of the Respondent at the time of the election,
we shall overrule the challenges to their ballots. We shall accord-
ingly direct the Regional Director to open and count the ballots of
George Beck and Paul Baione, to prepare a revised tally of ballots, and
to issue the proper certification.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts, as its
Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders
that Respondent, F. P. Young Company and Francis P. Young Coal
Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the'
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Fourth
Region shall, within 10 days from the date of this Direction, open
and count the ballots of Paul Baione and George Beck, and serve on
the parties a revised tally of ballots.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on June 14 and September 11, 1963, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint, dated September 13, 1963, in
Case No. 4-CA-3006, against F . P. Young Company and Francis P. Young Coal
Company, herein jointly called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
8(a) (1) and ( 3) and 2 ( 6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein called the Act . The Respondent filed an answer in which it denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices . On October 11, 1963, the Regional Director
for the Fourth Region issued an order consolidating Case No. 4-RC-5540 with Case
No. 4-CA-3006.
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner John H. Eadie at Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania, on November 4 and 5, 1963. After the conclusion of the hearing the
General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
Both from the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The F . P. Young Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . It is engaged in the wholesale
and retail distribution and sale of fuel oil . During the year preceding the date of
the complaint herein , the F . P. Young Company sold and distributed products hav-
ing a gross value in excess of $1,000 ,000. During the same period of time , it sold
and shipped products valued in excess of $13,000 from its place of business directly,
to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Francis P. Young Coal Company is a partnership, composed of Joseph Young,
John Young , and Frank Young . It maintains its principal office and place of business
in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , where it is engaged in the service of oil burners of the
customers who received fuel from the F. P. Young Company. During the year
1572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
preceding the date of the complaint herein, Francis P. Young Company per-
formed services having a gross value in excess of $80,000. During the same period
of time, it received goods valued in excess of $4,000 and transported to its place of
business directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
F. P. Young Company and Francis P. Young Coal Company are affiliated busi-
nesses with common officers, ownership, directors, and operators, and constitute a
single integrated business enterprise, with the said owners and operators formulating
a common labor policy for both Companies.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Yardmen, Local No. 470, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, herein called the Union, is a labor organization which admits to
membership employees of the Respondent.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On June 10, 1963, the Respondent discharged George Beck and Paul Baione.
Beck had been employed by the Respondent since about May 1961. Baione had
been employed since September 1961. Including Beck and Baione, the Respondent
had eight employees who were engaged in the cleaning and servicing of oil burners.
Because of customer complaints and cancellations of service contracts, the Re-
spondent called a meeting of all servicemen on May 28, 1963. At this meeting
management stressed that the employees were to spend a minimum of 1 hour on
each job,' that they were expected to report to their first job by 8 a.m., and that they
were to call the office after the completion of each job.
On Friday night, June 7, 1963, about 10 of the Respondent's employees met at
Beck's home. Raymond Taylor, business agent of the Union, was present. The
employees signed union authorization cards and elected Baione as shop steward.
About 11:30 a.m. on June 8 employee William Mendenhall had a conversation
with John Young, a vice president and partner of Respondent. Young approached
Mendenhall and asked him if the employees had had any meetings. Mendenhall
told him about the union meeting at Beck's home, mentioning the fact that Baione
"was elected as a speaker for the fellows." Young questioned him concerning the
employees who were at the meeting. Mendenhall named those who were present.
Young then asked him if "any outside people" were present and how he personally
felt about the Union. At the end of the conversation Young asked if Howard Levy,
a supervisory employee, attended the meeting. Mendenhall answered that Levy
was not present. I find that Young's interrogation of Mendenhall constitutes inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion?
About 8 a.m. on June 10 Baione called the office by radio and spoke to John
Young. He told Young that he was coming into the shop in order to pick up his work
orders and to get gasoline for his truck .3 Young stated that be thought that Baione
had got his work assignment on Friday and that he should have been at his first job by
8 a.m. Baione replied that he had mislaid his assignment. At the office he told John
Young that over the weekend he had installed a new boiler in his sister's home and
that Young should go to see his sister in order to get her as a new customer for the Re-
spondent. When Young remarked that Baione's first job had been "promised for 8
o'clock in the morning," Baione left the Respondent's premises about 8:12 a.m. He
arrived at his first job about 9:10 a.m., after having stopped at a restaurant for
coffee .4 When he arrived at the job, Levy, in another company car, waved to him
as he pulled away from in front of the customer's house. After Baione completed
his second job, he again spoke over the truck radio with John Young. Young wanted
to know Baione's sister's name, address, and telephone number.
Joseph Young, secretary-treasurer and partner of Respondent, went to the home of
Baione's sister. During his conversation with her, he learned that Baione had in-
stalled the oil burner on the previous Saturday and that Baione had used the Re-
spondent's service truck for the job.
1 Servicemen were assigned five heater cleaning jobs per day.
£ The findings concerning the above conversation are based upon the credited testimony
of Mendenhall.
s The Respondent provided each serviceman with a truck. The servicemen were re-
sponsible for their trucks and took them home each night. They were supposed to report
directly to their first jobs at 8 a.m.
4 It Is undisputed that it required about 20 minutes to drive from the Respondent's
premises to Balone 's first job.
F. P. YOUNG CO. AND FRANCIS P. YOUNG COAL CO. 1573
About 5 p.m. Baione reported that he had finished his work. He was instructed
to come to the office. He met there with John Young, Joseph Young, and Levy.
Joseph Young told Baione that he had taken from 8:12 a.m. until 9:10 a.m. to get
to his first job; that this was considered as "taking too long"; that the Respondent had
been getting complaints from customers about employees not arriving at the jobs on
time in the morning; that the Respondent could not let this condition continue; and
that he was discharged. Baione then stated that he thought the real reason for his
discharge was the fact that he had joined the Union. Joseph Young said that he
knew nothing about the Union. When he left the room, Howard Levy and John
Young talked to Baione about the Union. Young stated that Baione should have
come to the Respondent before joining the Union and asked him what he expected
to get from the Union. When Baione listed the benefits, Young said that the Union
would not make good on such promises but that the Respondent might have given'
the employees what they wanted if they had come to it first. Although Baione sug-
gested, "let's everybody get together and we'll talk about it and instead of going
through this business of firing us," Young would not reverse the decision to discharge
him 5
On June 10 Beck reported to his first job about 8 a.m. When he arrived at his
last job, he found that the boiler was hot. He serviced the burner, but did not
vacuum clean the boiler because of the danger of damage to the vacuum cleaner.
While the boiler was cooling, he returned his tools and equipment to the service truck
and went to a nearby "taproom." While he was at the bar looking at television,
Levy appeared and told him, "George, when you're through work for the day, I
want to see you in the office." Beck did not reply. He then returned to his last
job. About 4:30 p.m. and while he was completing his work, John Young appeared
and asked him if he had finished the job. Beck replied that he was "just finishing
up" and that Levy had told him to report to the office. Young confirmed this.
At the office Beck talked to Joseph Young, John Young, and Levy. Joseph Young
asked Beck if he had been in a bar that afternoon drinking beer. Beck admitted that
he was in the bar as it had been a hot day and he was thirsty, and that on other
occasions he had gone to a bar for beer. John Young then accused Beck of giving
false information on his radio reports as to the times when he started and completed
jobs, telling him that Levy had followed him and giving him the facts as reported by
Levy. Levy confirmed this from his notes. Beck did not deny the charge. Joseph
Young then discharged him. Befoie Beck left the premises he had a conversation
with Levy. Beck said, "Howard, why are you doing this to me? You knew about
this all the time." Levy replied, . . I didn't know anything about this until
John Young called me Sunday night and asked me about the meetings . you
fellows are wrong. You're not going to gain anything by joining the Union." 6
John Young testified that after the meeting of May 28 the Respondent decided
to wait about 2 weeks and then "to start a spot-checking campaign to see if the
men were adhering to the policy that we had set forth"; that the first spot check was
scheduled for June 10 for employees Baione and Robert Livingstone; that Baione and
Livingstone were checked by Levy and Joseph Young, respectively; that Joseph-
Young checked on Livingstone's first job only and then returned to the office; that
Levy also returned to the office after checking on Baione's first job; that he (John
Young) and Joseph Young had decided "to issue a severe warning to Paul Baione
at this time because of the fact that he was late"; that when Levy voiced suspicion
to the effect that Beck was completing his work earlier in the day than be had been
reporting, it was decided to have Levy go out and check on him; that the fact that
Beck had performed a job on June 6 about which the customer had complained also
entered into the decision; that about 12:10 p.m. Levy reported to him that he had
located Beck on his third job, and that Beck and employee George Deddy had left
the job together and gone to lunch in Beck's truck; that about 12:30 p.m. Levy
reported that Beck and Deddy had returned from lunch, and that after Deddy had
left for his own assignment Beck had collected his equipment from the house and
had proceeded to his fourth job; that about 1:16 p.m. Beck reported by radio that
he was going to his fourth job at 6349 Large Street; that immediately thereafter
Levy called on the telephone saying that he had overheard Beck's radio report and
that Beck actually had completed his fourth job at 6349 Large Street and was pro-
5 The above facts concerning Balone's discharge are based upon. credited portions of the
testimony of Baione, John Young, Joseph Young, and Levy. Testimony contrary to the
above is not credited.
a The above facts as to Beck's discharge are based upon credited portions of the tests:
mony of Beck, Levy, John Young, and Joseph Young. Testimony contrary to the above
is not credited.
1574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ceeding to his fifth job at 6312 Large Street; that at 2:25 p.m. Levy called and
reported that Beck had completed his fifth job and had put his tools in his truck,
had driven away from the job and had gone to a bar; that at 2:43 p.m., while Levy
was returning to the office, Beck reported that he was going to his fifth job; that in the
past the Respondent had discharged three employees for drinking and one employee
for reporting improperly on his work; that the employees were not permitted to
use the service trucks for their own personal business; 7 that in May 1961 the
Respondent's insurance policy was canceled "because of a high claim loss ratio,"
forcing the Respondent to "seek out another insurance carrier and pay a higher
premium"; and that he did not report his conversation of June 8 with Mendenhall to
Joseph Young.
Joseph Young testified that Baione had been requested and had refused to work
on Saturday, June 8; that it was the Respondent's rule that the employees were not
to. use the service trucks for their own personal business without permission; 8 that
Baione was discharged because he was late for his first job and because be had used
the Respondent's truck on his own business without permission after having refused
to work on Saturday; that the decision to spot check the employees was made on
June 7; that two employees were to be checked each day; that the arrival time on
the first job was all that the Respondent intended to check; that the Respondent had
planned to check on Baione and Livingstone only on June 10; that he first learned
of the Union during the conversation when he discharged Baione; and that he was
"upset" because "these men had gone out and joined the union."
The evidence shows that the Respondent knew that Baione and Beck were the lead-
ing adherents of the Union and that the Respondent had a union animus. Although
it is clear that the Respondent had cause to discharge Baione and Beck, I believe
that under all of the circumstances the discharges were violative of the Act.
According to John Young, he and Joseph Young had decided to warn but not to
discharge Baione for being late on his first job. Insofar as Baione's use of the
service truck is concerned, I believe that the question of insurance alone indicates
the necessity for some sort of rule or policy against unrestricted use of the trucks
by the employees for personal reasons. However, that the Respondent expected and
permitted some limited use of the trucks is indicated. In fact, the uncontradicted
testimony shows that as late as 1961 George Young, who was an active officer or
partner of the Respondent at the time, told employees that they could use their
trucks for personal reasons.
John Young testified that George Young told the employees when they were hired
that "drinking on the job or going into a bar on company time . . . was cause for
automatic dismissal." However, his testimony indicates that an employee would
"not necessarily" be discharged for drinking a beer. Other evidence indicates that
the Respondent was lax in enforcing its rule. According to the Respondent's own
witness, it had been decided to check only two employees each day to find out if they
arrived on time at their first job. This was done in the cases of Baione and Living-
stone. Then the Respondent abandoned its planned procedure. Levy was sent out
in the middle of the day to check on Beck. Although he apparently found nothing
wrong with Beck's third job, Levy continued to check on him. Further, that there
had been some mistake and that he had been misinformed about the completion time
of Beck's fifth job must have become apparent to John Young when he found Beck
working on the job at 4:30 p.m. These facts indicate that the Respondent was look-
ing for an excuse to discharge Beck. When considered together with the conversa-
tions related and found above, it becomes clear that the Respondent was illegally
motivated.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent discharged Baione and Beck because of
their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring. in con-
nection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
7 Beck, Balone, and Deddy testified otherwise.
8 Levy testified to the effect that at various times he granted permission to employees
to, use their trucks for personal reasons.
F. P. YOUNG CO . AND FRANCIS P. YOUNG COAL CO. 1 575
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discharged Paul Baione and George Beck
on June 10, 1963. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer
the above employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-'
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the dis-.
crimination by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he
would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of rein-
statement, less his net earnings during such period in accordance with the formula
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with interest on
such sum, such interest to be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed
by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
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 F. P. Young Company and Francis P. Young Coal Company comprise a
single employer under the Act and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. By discharging Paul Baione and George Beck because of their membership
in and activities on behalf of the Union , thereby discouraging membership in the
Union, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (I) and (3) of the Act.
5. 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 F. P. Young Company and Joseph
Young, John Young, and Frank Young, partners doing business under the name and
style of Francis P. Young Coal Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, their officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall be ordered to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization of
their employees , by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating against them
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) Interrogating their employees concerning their membership in or activities
on behalf of the Union , or of any other labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing their employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist the above-named labor organization, 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
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer the employees named above immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights or privileges , and make them whole in the manner set forth in the sec-
tion of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board or its agents , for examination and copying , all payroll records , social
security payment records , timecards , personnel records and reports , and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
1576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Post at their plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent
or its authorized representatives, be posted by 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 employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writing, within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Decision what steps it has taken to comply
herewith.'°
0In 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 he 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."
10In 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
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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in General Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Helpers and Yardmen, Local No. 470, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other
labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning membership in, or their
activities on behalf of, the above union , or of any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and
Yardmen, Local No. 470, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them:
Paul Baione
George Beck
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing, members of any labor organization except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
F. P. YOUNG COMPANY AND FRANCIS
P. YOUNG COAL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 1577
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. 735-2612, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance Workers
International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-4461. May 13,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 12, 1964, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Decision 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, Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members 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 the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order rec-
ommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
i In an earlier case involving a similar question, the Board found that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain with the union certified as the exclusive
representative of its employees at its district offices in the Cleveland, Ohio, metropolitan
area. See Metropolitan Life Insurance Company , 141 NLRB 1074 , enfd . 330, F. 2d 62
(C.A. 6).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
At issue in this case is whether Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(5) and (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 29 U.S.C. 151, et seq., herein called
the Act. This Decision follows and explains the reasons for my telegram to the
parties on January 3, 1964, granting the General Counsel's motion for judgment on
the pleadings and canceling the hearing set for January 6, 1964.
146 NLRB No. 184.