Independent Linen Service Co. of Mississippi

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 463 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

INDEPENDENT LINEN SERVICE CO. Or MISSISSIPPI 463
the strikers peacefully return and are welcomed.6 Accordingly I find that the evi-
dence as a whole does not affirmatively establish that the Respondent discharged
any of the strikers.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in section I, above, have
a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom , and that it take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act..
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. Floyd Fuel Company, Tunnelton, West Virginia, is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. By threatening its employees with discharge in reprisal for strike action, and
by telling its employees that strikers lose their employee status, the Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby committed unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication. ]
6 The recent Board decisions upon which the General Counsel relies primarily, both
issued after the Kerrigan Iron Works case, are inapposite here. In Brookville Glove Co.,
114 NLRB 213, the employer wrote personal letters to each employee, one 3 and the other
7 days after the strike started, saying they were no longer employees if they did not
abandon the strike, the second letter accompanied by a termination notice. When the
strikers later attempted to return, the employer refused to accept them except as "new
employees." In Ford Radio J Mica Corporation, 115 NLRB 1046, telegrams were sent to
the strikers saying unless they returned to work they were "discharged without further
notice," and when they offered to abandon the strike 2 days later the employer refused
to take them back, expressly saying "they had been discharged."
Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi and Laundry,
Dry Cleaning & Linen Workers International Union, Ind.,
Local No. 218. Case No. 15-CA-1456. February 4, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 9, 1959, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
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-
126 NLRB No. 58.
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers 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
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Respondent, Independent Linen Service
Company of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from interrogating its employees concerning
their union membership, sentiments, and activities, and concerning
their attendance at union meetings, the happenings at union meetings,
and the identity of other employees who attend union meetings or who
joined the Union; engaging in surveillance of union meetings, and
claiming and pretending to engage in such surveillance; promising
benefits to abandon the Union; threatening discharge if employees
should join or vote for the Union; and soliciting employees to cam-
paign for it against the Union; or in any like or similar manner inter-
fering with the rights of employees as guaranteed to them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plants in Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representative, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for 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
notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
1 We provide , however, an Order narrower in scope than that recommended by the
Trial Examiner.
2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
INDEPENDENT LINEN SERVICE CO. OF MISSISSIPPI 465
APPENDIX A
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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership, sentiments, and activities, and concerning their at-
tendance at union meetings, the happenings at union meetings,
and the identity of other employees who attend union meetings or
who join the Union; nor will we engage in surveillance of union
meetings or claim or pretend to engage in such surveillance; nor
will we promise benefits to abandon the Union, or threaten dis-
charge if employees join or vote for the Union, or solicit em-
ployees to campaign for us against the Union, or in any like or
similar manner interfere with the rights of employees as guaran-
teed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or to remain members of the
above Union or any other labor organization.
INDEPENDENT LINEN SERVICE COMPANY OF MISSISSIPPI,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136), was heard in Jackson, Mississippi , on August 25-26,
1959 , with all parties represented by counsel . The complaint, issued on June 25,
1959 , by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and based
on charges duly filed and served , alleged that Respondent had engaged in various
coercive acts in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Respondent's answer denied that its acts amounted to or constituted violations
of the Act. Other averments concerning a representation proceeding before the
Board ( see 122 NLRB 1002 , and supplemental decision , 124 NLRB 1008) con-
stituted no defense to the present proceeding.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS ; THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find on the basis of facts pleaded in the complaint and admitted in the answer,
that Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi I is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act ( i.e., annual extrastate purchases exceeding $500,000
and annual sales of $24,000 to firms engaged in commerce ), and that Laundry, Dry
1 As amended at the hearing.
554461-60-vol. 12 6- 31
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cleaning & Linen Workers International Union, Ind., Local No. 218, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. See 122 NLRB 1002,
supra.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and issues
In September 1958, the Charging Union and Local 891 of the Teamsters began
organizing campaigns in Respondent's Jackson plant. Teamsters filed a representa-
tion petition on September 23, the Laundry Workers on September 29, and a repre-
sentation hearing was held on October 24, 1958. A globe-type election was held on
February 11, 1959, which was won by the Laundry Workers. See 124 NLRB 1008,
supra.
The issues as pleaded and litigated concerned mainly questions of fact, i.e., whether
Respondent engaged in certain coercive conduct through its supervisors, Thomas E.
Jackson and J. W. Ragsdale.2 Jackson was charged with interrogation, actual
surveillance, pretended surveillance, threats of layoff and discharge, solicitations, and
promise of a benefit to abandon the Union. Ragsdale was charged with interroga-
tion, actual surveillance, and a threat to assault a union election observer. Re-
spondent was also charged with granting an increase in vacation benefits on Sep-
tember 27 to discourage union activities.
The major bulk of the evidence related to Jackson's activities, who did not testify
except as the General Counsel's witness on the incident of surveillance. As there
was no denial of his other conduct as testified to by several witnesses for the General
Counsel, the summary of the evidence can appropriately begin with a brief resume
of the undisputed testimony.
B. The evidence
Willie May McDavid, who had been appointed a representative of the Union
by M. S. Romer, the organizer, testified that sometime between November 20 and
23, Jackson had a long discussion with her about some new shirt pressers the Com-
pany had at Memphis and Little Rock, and inquired if she would like to get some
of the new units at the Jackson plant, explaining that although the Company could
not give her a raise, "You would all make more money." Jackson asked her to
talk to the other girls about it and whether, "if we should be lucky enough to get the
new units and they liked them, would they forget all about the Union." When
McDavid inquired what union, Jackson asked if she was not Romer's righthand
woman in the Union and if she had not been attending the meetings. Jackson also
discussed with her certain complaints concerning him and the working conditions
at the plant, and when McDavid told him, "There were a lot of bad things said about
you," Jackson asked her to tell him who had said them.
Beatrice Anderson testified that the week after the first general meeting, Jackson
told her he had learned the Union was coming into the plant, that he did not want
her to join it, and that if she did so it would cost her her job. On another occasion
Jackson gave her a message to Harold Plumpp (a discharged employee who lived
at her house and in whose behalf a charge had been filed) to the effect that, "The
Labor Board had taken over," and that Plumpp would not get another job in the
plant, and that he should get a job elsewhere. Jackson hinted ominously, "For you,
yourself, you better wake up."
Plumpp testified that on one occasion Jackson gave him a message to Beatrice
Anderson that though she was a good worker, "if she wanted to be there to vote for
the Company" (from which Plumpp understood Jackson to mean if she wanted
to keep her job). On another occasion after Plumpp attended a union meeting,
Jackson told Plumpp that he had a list of everyone who went to the meeting (holding
a folded paper in his hand at the time).
Kinia Yarn, Mary E. McMillian, Dora G. King, and Nathaniel McLaurin each
testified to separate occasions on which Jackson interrogated them about such mat-
ters as their own attendance at union meetings, the identity of others who attended,
whether the witness had joined, and the identity of other union members. Alice
Emmons testified that the day before the election, Jackson solicited her help to
go among the girls and tell them not to join the union and to vote for the Company.
McLaurin testified that Jackson told him also to get other employees not to join
the Union.
2An allegation that Supervisor J. F. Thompson had engaged in surveillance of a union
meeting in Meridian was dismissed for lack of proof at the close of the General Counsel's
case.
INDEPENDENT LINEN SERVICE CO. OF MISSISSIPPI 467
The evidence concerning Ragsdale, though of lesser quantity , showed that he
was engaged in a parallel course of conduct . McDavid testified that around February
3, Ragsdale questioned her about attending union meetings and asked what the
union representative had said. Horace Simmons testified that on a Sunday morning
in September, following his Saturday visit to Meridian with Ira Hoggett in con-
nection with organizing the drivers there, Ragsdale called him about attending a
drivers' meeting that afternoon , and then inquired whether Simmons had gone to
Meridian, told Simmons he knew Simmons had gone, asked what success he had
had, how many men were there , who they were, and how many signed cards.
Though Simmons never admitted having gone , Ragsdale continued to question him
for the names of those who had signed cards. Hoggett testified that Ragsdale also
questioned him on Sunday morning about his trip to Meridian.
Ragsdale admitted that he talked to employees about the Union , that he was
"campaigning for the Company ," and that he tried to persuade McDavid that the
Union would be of no benefit to her, but he denied that he questioned her (or other
employees ) about union membership or attendance at meetings . Ragsdale also
denied that he questioned Simmons about the Meridian trip and testified that he
knew nothing about it.
Both Ragsdale and Manager B. M. Overstreet testified that the employees discussed
union activities and meetings openly in the plant , that union affairs were a matter
of common knowledge , and that interrogation by supervisors was wholly unneces-
sary. That testimony cannot serve, however, as corroboration of Ragsdale 's denials
in the face of the testimony by three witnesses that Ragsdale questioned them about
various facets of union activities . Indeed , the testimony of McDavid , Simmons,
and Hoggett showed that Ragsdale was contemporaneously engaged in the same type
of antiunion campaign as Jackson ( including their joint surveillance of a union
meeting, later to be adverted to). Ragsdale 's unsupported denials are inadequate to
overcome the cumulative weight of that summarized above , which is fully credited.
There was also evidence concerning a tavern brawl between Ragsdale and Hoggett
several hours after the election on February 11, when Ragsdale cursed Hoggett and
challenged him to fight . Ragsdale and Sammie Lee Acey testified that the incident
was provoked when Hoggett slapped Ragsdale on the back and called him a "big
shot." Though Hoggett assumed that Ragsdale 's actions were provoked by knowl-
edge that he was for the Union (Hoggett had served as the Union 's observer), there
was no reference to the Union by either participant , and Hoggett admitted that
Ragsdale never said , and that he did not know, why Ragsdale wanted to fight him.
Ragsdale testified that he had been drinking beer over a long period of time and
he had only a slight recollection of the event . Indeed , in refusing the challenge,
Hoggett charged Ragsdale with being drunk or having been drinking . In any event,
the evidence failed to establish that Ragsdale 's threat to fight Hoggett was related
to the latter's union activities.
There is no dispute concerning the incident of surveillance by Jackson and Rags-
dale of a union meeting on October 29. The meeting was held in the early evening
at the Teamsters' hall on Woodrow Wilson Street some quarter of a mile from the
plant, which is located on the same street . Eddie Woodard , an employee in attend-
ance , had seen Ragsdale momentarily in his car (company owned ) as Woodard and
Jimmy Jones left the meeting . Jackson , called by the General Counsel , admitted
that Ragsdale had driven him there at his request so that he might check on an
inquiry from an employee (Lena Mae Gray ) concerning a report that those who
did not attend a meeting at an address on Woodrow Wilson Street would be fined
$15. Though Jackson admitted having driven by the union hall many times in the
past, he denied knowing that the report related to a union meeting because Gray was
under the impression it concerned some kind of a company meeting.
Jackson explained that he called Ragsdale to drive him because his own car was
not available at his home , but it developed that Jackson had in fact driven a company
truck , lettered with the Company 's name, from his home to the plant , where Ragsdale
picked him up in the unmarked car which Ragsdale customarily drove . Jackson
testified that when they reached the union hall and realized that the report related to
a union meeting, they drove past without stopping . He admitted , however, that
he was naturally interested in seeing how many or how few employees attended the
meeting and how many cars were there . He testified that he recognized Jimmy
Jones outside , as well as the cars of two different employees . Significantly , though
Jackson testified that it was plain when they reached the hall that a union meeting
was in progress and that he realized it was a mistake to have gone there, he
admitted that after passing the hall in one direction , they chose to turn around and
drive past the hail again , though there were other routes available to them.
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ragsdale's testimony was in substantial accord. He, like Jackson, was fully aware
of the location of the union hall, having driven past it daily. He admitted that he
would have learned of a company meeting before the employees would, and that
he had never heard of one being held away from the plant premises .3
The evidence as a whole palpably requires rejection of the claim by Jackson and
Ragsdale that they were checking on a company meeting. The subject matter of the
report itself, i.e., a fine for not attending, coupled with their prior knowledge of the
organizing campaign and their active participation in a countercampaign (including
Jackson's frequent representations that he knew the names of employees who were
attending union meetings), and with the fact that they would certainly have known
of any company meetings before the employees would, fully refute that claim.
Jackson's sole explanation that he called Ragsdale for transportation was completely
exposed when it developed that he drove a company truck to meet Ragsdale for
their rendezvous. And though they did not linger in the vicinity of the union hall,
their explanations again failed to hold water. In the first place, they were seen
by Woodard and Jackson admitted having seen Jones. But what finally exposed
Jackson's claim of mere curiosity was that, after admittedly recognizing that a union
meeting was in progress, they turned back and repeated their journey past the hall.
It is therefore concluded and found that Jackson and Ragsdale were engaged in
actual surveillance on the occasion.
There remains the matter of the granting of additional vacation benefits to older
employees, which the General Counsel contends was to discourage union activities.
That issue turns mainly on the happenings at a meeting of the drivers (route sales-
men) which Respondent called on Sunday afternoon, September 21,4 for the purpose,
ostensibly at least, of allaying the drivers' fears resulting from certain discharges
which Respondent had made because of shortages in its funds. Though that was
the springboard of the discussions, the evidence showed that ultimately a number
of employee complaints were brought up. The chief points of conflict were whether
it was Hoggett or a company spokesman who first injected the subject of the Union
and what it was the Company said on the subject of vacation benefits. Both points
are resolved against the General Counsel' s contentions.
Respondent's witnesses, Manager Overstreet and Ragsdale, testified that Vice
President Foster (the only speaker before Hoggett) made no reference to the Union,
and that Hoggett, who replied to Foster, suggested, after referring to certain em-
ployee complaints concerning vacations, retirement, shortages, etc., that the matters
could or should be worked out with the Company without bringing the Union
into the picture. Though Hoggett testified on direct that Sullivan (Respondent's
counsel) spoke before he did and attempted to show why the employees were wrong
in trying to bring the Union in, he admitted on cross-examination that he himself
had made the statement about the Company straightening out the difficulties without
going to the Union and that until then there had been no discussion of the Union at
all. Those admissions rendered valueless Simmons' testimony on the point, since
Simmons testified he could not recall Hoggett saying anything about the Union and
did not recall his statement about settling the matter without going to the Union.
Indeed, Simmons admitted that he had been unable to get straight in his mind
the happenings at two different company meetings.
As Hoggett also admitted that he was the one who brought up the subject of
vacation benefits, the conflict here concerns what the Company said and did about
it. Hoggett testified that Foster directed Overstreet to make a note of the matter
and he would see if he could get vacations raised for the older employees. Simmons
did not testify on the point, and there was no corroboration of Hoggett. Overstreet
testified that Foster, in replying to Hoggett's complaint about vacations, stated that
a 2-week vacation had already been approved (at Respondent's headquarters in
Memphis, where the plan was already in effect), but that Respondent had intended
to withhold the notice until the effective date on January 1. Overstreet's testimony,
which was corroborated explicitly by Ragsdale, is credited over Hoggett's uncorro-
borated testimony on the point.
The formal announcement was posted the following day.
What the evidence shows, then, is that Respondent had made its decision to
increase the vacation benefits prior to the union activity, but when it learned from
3In an attempt to support the bona fides of Jackson's explanation that he was check-
ing on it company meeting, Respondent offered evidence that Iloggett had once called a
meeting concerning which some question of company sponsorship arose, but the evidence
showed that that meeting was held several mouths later.
4 Though the testimony was in conflict as to whether the date was the 21st or the 28th,
the General Counsel's brief accepts the 21st as the correct date.
INDEPENDENT LINEN SERVICE CO. OF MISSISSIPPf 469
Hoggett that vacations were among the sources of employee complaints, it informed
the employees of the change of benefits. Though it is found, despite disclaimers by
Respondent's witnesses, that Respondent was aware of the union activities at the
time of the meeting,5 this did not establish that the announcement was made to
discourage union activities. The evidence showed that the apprehensions of the
drivers were centered on the question of shortages, and Respondent was under-
standably interested, as Overstreet testified, in soothing their nerves. He denied
specifically that the announcement was related to union activities, and the prepon-
derance of the evidence does not show that it was. Significantly, the evidence showed
that, despite Hoggett's invitation to straighten out other complaints without bringing
in the Union, Respondent's announcement was confined to the single matter on which
a decision had previously been made.
Concluding Findings
Though much of the interrogation of employees by Jackson and Ragsdale occurred,
as Respondent contends, during the course of legitimate arguments against union-
ization (Threads-Incorporated, 124 NLRB 968) it occurred as well in a setting of
purely coercive statements and threats, of actual surveillance, and of frequent claims
that the supervisors in fact knew the identity of employees who attended union
meetings and who participated in union activities. Id., 124 NLRB 968. The inter-
rogation thus did not stand alone (Tallapoosa River Electric Cooperative, 124 NLRB
474) but was an integral part of a coercive campaign to restrain and discourage the
employees from engaging in organizational activities.
It is, therefore, concluded and found that in the context of the entire course of
Jackson's and Ragsdale's conduct Respondent engaged in interference, restraint, and
coercion of employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) by their following
acts and statements:
The interrogation of employees concerning their union membership, sentiments,
and activities, and concerning their attendance at union meetings, the happenings at
union meetings, and the identity of other employees who attended the meetings and
who joined the Union; the actual surveillance of the union meeting on October 29
and the various claims of surveillance; 6 the promise of increased pay through the
new shirt pressing units if the employees would "forget about the Union"; the
threats to Anderson and Plumpp regarding the loss of employment because of joining
or voting for the Union; and the solicitation of Emmons and McLaurin to campaign
for it among the employees against the Union.
I also conclude and find that Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices
by its announcement of increased vacation benefits on September 21 and 22, or by
Ragsdale's attempt to fight with Hoggett.
Respondent's contention that under Section 10(b) no unfair labor practices can be
found prior to October 2, 1958 (6 months prior to the amended charge), is rejected.
The original charge, which was filed on January 7, 1959, contained, in addition to
alleged violations of Section 8(a)(3), a general allegation of Section 8(a)(1) viola-
tions, i.e., "By these and other acts and conduct," Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees. The findings may, therefore, properly include
any Section 8(a)(1) violation which occurred within 6 months prior to January 7,
1959. N.L.R.B. v. Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc., 213 F. 2d 208, 214-215
(C.A. 5), enfg. 106 NLRB 295, 298; Kansas Milling Company v. N.L.R.B., 185 F.
2d 413, 415-416 (C.A. 10); N.L.R.B. v. Kohler Company, 220 F. 2d 3, 6-7 (C.A. 7).
III. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action of the type conventionally ordered in such cases, which I find necessary to
6 Though Thompson had not engaged in surveillance in Meridian the preceding day,
the evidence did establish that he obviously became aware of the nature of the employee
.activities which were taking place before him. Furthermore, the testimony of Simmons
and Hoggett showed that knowledge of those activities immediately reached Ragsdale
Finally, Hoggett brought the matter into the open at the meeting itself, which signifi-
cantly, was attended by Sullivan, who had been retained only to represent the Company
in the labor matter.
6 The latter claims, even if pretenses , were plainly intended to convey the impression
that Respondent had the meetings under surveillance. Threads-Incorporated, supra;
Fleming Manufacturing Company, Inc ., 119 NLRB 452, 463; Idaho Egg Producers,
111 NLRB 93, 103.
-470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Because of the nature and scope of Respondent's coercive
practices , I shall recommend a broad cease and desist order.
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 Charging Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
2. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7, in the manner found under Concluding Findings,
supra , Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1).
3. Said unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with the operation
of Respondent 's business as set forth in section I, above , have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Scougal Rubber Mfg. Co ., Inc.; Bruce J. Stewart, d/b/a Stewart
Machine and Tool Co.; Mechanical Products Mfg. Co.; Rottler
Boring Bar Co ., Petitioners and International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO, Local No. 79
Harbor Island Machine Works, Inc. and Lars R. Meyer, Peti-
tioner and International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO, Local No . 79. Cases Nos. 19-RM-265, 19-RM-261, 19-RM-
267, 19-RM-270, and 19-RD-156. February 4, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before Rachel Storer, hearing of-
ficer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearings are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. These Employers have been part of a group of 50 or more em-
ployers represented in collective bargaining in the Seattle area by the
1 Attorneys for certain of the Employers filed a motion to consolidate the records after
the hearings had been held We hereby grant this motion to consolidate and also include
in this consolidation for decision the case of Soougai Rubber inasmuch as it arises from
the same factual background and involves the same problems.
2 We note that the Union claims to represent a unit broader in scope than that sought
in the Employer petitions. See Triangle Publications, Inc., 115 NLRB 941. In the
decertification proceeding we note that the Union did not disclaim interest In a single-
employer unit. Compare Langenau Manufacturing Company, 115 NLRB 1505, 1506
,126 NLRB No. 53.