Gebhardt-Vogel Tanning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 1289 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

GEBHARDT-VOGEL TANNING COMPANY 1289
any industry affecting commerce, to engage in, strikes or refusals in the course
of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to per-
form any services; or threaten, coerce, or restrain Poole's Warehousing, Inc.,
or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require persons
to cease doing business with Poole's Warehousing, Inc.
DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 639,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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:
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No. 752-2159.
Gebhardt -Vogel Tanning Company and Leather Workers Union
Local No . 47, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work-
men of North America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 3O-CA-279.
June 3, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed by Leather Workers Union Local No. 47,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, the General Counsel
for the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
for Region 30, issued a complaint against Gebhardt-Vogel Tanning
Company, hereinafter called the Respondent, alleging that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. The Respondent filed an answer and an
amended answer to the complaint denying the commission of the
alleged unfair labor practices and also pleading certain affirmative
defenses. Copies of the charge, complaint and notice of hearing,
answer, and amended answer were duly served upon the parties.
On January 26, 1966, all parties to this proceeding executed a
stipulation to transfer proceedings to the Board for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and decision. The stipulation states, in substance,
that the parties agreed to waive a hearing before a Trial Examiner,
that no oral testimony is necessary or desired by any of the parties
except in the event the Board should determine to review its Deci-
sion in Case No. 30-RD-121 and/or order a hearing with respect to
1 Gebhardt -Vogel Tanning Company, 154 NLRB 913 , in which the Board applied the
principles established in Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLIIB 785, and dismissed a
petition for decertification filed by certain employees of the Respondent.
158 NLRB No. 123.
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the issues raised therein, that the parties assume, in line with estab-
lished precedent, that the Board's decision in Case No. 30-RD-12,
a representation proceeding, is not subject to review in the instant
unfair labor practice case, and that the charge, complaint, answer,
amended answer, and further stipulations 2 set forth in the stipula-
tion constitute the entire record in this case.
On February 2, 1966, the Board approved the stipulation and
transferred the case to the Board. Thereafter, a brief was filed by
the Respondent.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation and the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
The Respondent is a Wisconsin corporation engaged at Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, in the business of tanning hides. The Respondent an-
nually sells and ships products valued in excess of $50,000 to points
outside the State of Wisconsin. We find that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
On July 9, 1963, following an election, the Board certified the
Union as bargaining representative of all employees of Respondent
in the following appropriate unit :
All production and maintenance employees and plant clerical
employees, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
On July 28, 1964, an individual employee filed a decertification
petition under Section 9(c) (1) of the Act, alleging that the Union
2 Inter alin, the parties further agreed that, in the event ,of a petition for enforcement
or review of the Board's Order in the instant proceeding , the entire record in Case No.
30-RD-12 "shall be a part of the transcript of the record to be filed with the Court to
the full extent provided by Section 9 (d) of the Act."
GEBHARDT-VOGEL TANNING COMPANY 1291
was no longer the statutory representative of employees in the
appropriate unit and requesting an election to prove the allegation.
On August 31, 1965, the Board issued its Decision 3 dismissing the
petition for decertification upon the ground that, as Respondent had
unlawfully delayed in furnishing wage information for a period of
5 months during the certification year, the Union had not had the
benefit of the certification for a full year at the time the petition was
filed.4 On September 8 and 16, 1965, the Union sent letters to
Respondent requesting a meeting for the purpose of negotiating a
collective-bargaining agreement. On September 24, 1965, Respond-
ent replied to the letters denying the request.
B. The refusal to bargain
The parties have stipulated that :
Subsequent to August 31 and continuing to date, Respondent has
challenged the validity of the Board's Decision and Order in
Case No. 30-RD-12 [154 NLRB No. 68], and Respondent has
refused to bargain with the Union in reliance on the initial
Decertification Petition and its continuing doubt that the Union
represents a majority of its employees.
In its brief to the Board, Respondent asserts that the only con-
tested issue in the case is the validity of the Board's Decision and
Order dismissing the decertification petition. It argues that the
Board should reconsider that Decision because: (1) the extension of
the certification period beyond the year was erroneous and in excess
of the Board's authority; and (2) assuming the validity of the
extension principle, the application thereof was invalid. Substan-
tially similar arguments were considered and rejected by the Board
in its Decision dismissing the decertification petition.5 Accordingly,
we affirm our Decision and Order in the decertification case.
C. Conclusion
We find that by refusing to bargain upon request with the Union
since September 8, 1965, Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (5)
and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, oc-
curring in connection with its operations as described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
3 Gebhardt-Vogel Tanning Company, supra.
4 Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., supra.
e The extension principle , first enunciated in Mar-Jac Poultry Company , Inc, supra,
has been judicially approved , N.L.R B. v. Commerce Company d /b/a Lamar Hotel, 328
F. 2d 600 ( C.A. 5), cert denied 379 U.S. 817 , enfg . 140 NLRB 226.
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, we
shall order Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action 'which we find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Gebhardt-Vogel Tanning Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Leather Workers Union Local No. 47, Amalgamated Meat -Cut-
ters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees and plant clerical
employees at Respondent's plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, exclusive
of office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
4. The Union is, and at all times since September 8, 1965, has
been, the exclusive, certified representative of all employees in the
aforesaid unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
5. By refusing since September 8, 1965, to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employ-
ees in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5)
and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
Respondent, Gebhardt-Vogel Tanning Company, Milwaukee, Wis-
consin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Leather Workers Union
Local No. 47, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
GEBHARDT-VOGEL TANNING COMPANY 1293
of North America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
employees in the unit found appropriate herein with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named
Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit
found appropriate herein with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 30, shall, after being
duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
0In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "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 you that :
WE WILL, upon request, bargain in good faith with Leather
Workers Union Local No. 47, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit with
respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding
is reached, wE wILL embody such understanding in a signed
contract.
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
GEBHARDT-VOGEL TANNING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
Board's Regional Office, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wis-
consin, Telephone No. 272-8600.
Agawam Food Mart , Inc., et al. d/b/a The Food Mart and Local
33, Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Food Store and Allied Workers
of North America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-5036. June 3,
1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 27, 1966, Trial Examiner Sidney J. Barban 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 additional unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint. Thereafter the General Counsel, the Respondent, and
the Charging Party filed exceptions to certain portions of the Trial
Examiner's Decision, and supporting briefs.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed
'The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record in this
proceeding , including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and posi-
tions of the parties. In view of our findings and order herein, we consider it unnecessary
in this case to consider the General Counsel 's exceptions that additional 8 (a) (1 ) findings
be made.
158 NLRB No. 124.