Francis Plating Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 7, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 35 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

FRANCIS PLATING CO. 35
FRANCIS PLATI NG CO., PETITIONEII and METAL POLISHERS, BUFFERS,
PLATERS &-, HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 128, AFL.
Case No. f0-R111-139. July 7,1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Karin A. Nelson, 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.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer is engaged in the business of chrome plating. It
filed the instant petition seeking a present determination of the bar-
gaining representative of its production employees at its Modesto,
California, plant. At the hearing, the sole testimony was presented
by Union Representative Mannebach. The testimony shows that in
August 1953 Mannebach visited the Modesto plant and discussed with
the Employer the Union's desire to organize the plant and "to have
a union contract"; and that the Employer permitted him to go into
the shop that day to speak to the employees. Mannebach further
testified that he left with the Employer at this meeting a copy of a
contract, which was "for informational purposes only so he [the
Employers could be familiar with the Union contract in the area," but
that no request was made that the Employer sign the contract. The
contract was not placed in evidence, and its contents were not revealed
at the hearing. No further meeting took place between the Union
and the Employer. On January 14, 1954, the Union sent the Em-
ployer a letter, as follows :
After many calls at your place of business and repeated attempts
to contact you by phone, it has been impossible for me to contact
you for the purpose of discussing the matter of a Union contract
with our organization and your shop.
I believe that before the Union takes any organizing action it
would be to our mutual interests to discuss this matter.
i See Hollow Tree Lumber Co, 91 NLRIl 635 . Chairman Farmer and Members Rodgers
and Beeson , in agreeing to assert jurisdiction iii this case, are not thereby to be deemed as
concu .iung an the Itoald ' s past jurisdictional standards as a permanent policy
109 NLRB No 3.
334811-55-vol 109-4
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I am willing to meet at your office in Modesto any time at your
convenience Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, January 20, 21,
22. Please write or phone our office, Market 1-1414, if this meet-
ing can be arranged as the Union will withold [sic] any direct
action until after this meeting.
Mannebach testified that the Union's only reason for sending the
January 14 letter was to discuss with the Employer methods of or-
ganizing the employees, without having to resort to picketing. On
January 22, 1954, the Union commenced to picket the Employer's
plant and has continued such picketing to the time of the hearing.
The placard carried by the Union's picket at first bore just the name
of the union local, the AFL insignia, and the word "Picket." Sev-
eral days later the placard was changed to read "This is not a union
shop. Please cooperate with us to get area conditions of this trade
for this shop." Mannebach testified that the Union never requested
recognition of the Employer at any time. As of March 23, 1954, the
Union formally notified the Board that it does not at present claim
to represent the employees of the Employer.
The Employer contends that the Union made a demand for recog-
nition sufficient to support the petition, and that by its current picket-
ing activities, the Union casts doubt on the meaning of the disclaimer
of interest in representation the Union filed with the Board.
It is not clear on this record whether the Union, in its initial con-
tacts with the Employer, made a demand that it be recognized as the
bargaining representative of the employees involved. However, we
need not decide this question. The Union's subsequent disclaimer
filed with the Board would be sufficient to remove the question con-
cerning representation necessary to support the Employer's petition-
provided the disclaimer is clear and unequivocal, and the Union has
not concurrently taken any other action inconsistent with an un-
equivocal denial that it claims to represent the employees.2
We believe the Union's current picketing activities cannot be rec-
onciled with its disclaimer of interest in representing the employees.
As publicized, the purpose of the picketing is "to get area conditions
of this trade for this shop." Such conduct on the part of the Union
is construed by the Board as an attempt to secure, by means of picket-
ing, conditions and concessions normally obtained as a result of col-
lective bargaining. The Union is thus seeking to compel the Em-
ployer to bargain with it without regard to the question of the
Union's status as representative of the employees. We find, there-
2 See , e. g, McAllister Transfer, Inc , 105 NLRB 751 ; Hamilton's Ltd., 93 NLRB 1076,
1078, Smith's Hardware Co., 93 NLRB 1009.
EPHRAIM HASPEL 37
fore, that the picketing is tantamount to a present demand for rec-
ognition,3 which renders ineffectual the Union's disclaimer of interest.
4. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act:
All production employees at the Employer's Modesto, California,
plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 See Petrie 's An Operating Division of Red Robin Stores , Inc., 108 NLRB 1318.
Although Member Peterson dissented therein , he deems himself bound by the decision of
the majority in that case. '
EPHRAIM HASPEL , AN INDIVIDUAL DOING BUSINESS AS EPHRAIM HASPEL
and BONNAZ AND HAND EMBROIDERERS , TUCKERS, STITCHERS AND
PLEATERS UNION, LOCAL 66, INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT
WORKERS UNION , AFL. Case No. 19-CA-3091. July 8, 1954
Decision and Order
On December 2, 1953, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in and was not engaging in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Gen-
eral Counsel and Local 66 filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs. Local 66 and the Respondent also requested
oral argument. That request is hereby denied because the record,
including the exceptions and briefs, in our opinion, adequately pre-
sent the issues and the position of the parties.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner only
to the extent consistent herewith.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had not violated
Section 8 (a) (1) or (2) of the Act. The General Counsel and the
Union except to these findings. We find merit in these exceptions.
The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the Respondent had violated
Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act by interfering with the forma-
tion of E. Haspel Shop Union, hereinafter called the Shop Union, and
109 NLRB No. 8.