International Idlewild Catering Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 513 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

INTERNATIONAL IDLEWILD CATERING CORPORATION 513
the ground that the latter has expressed unalterable opposition to the independent
distributor plan. Back pay shall be computed in the manner established by the
Board and the Respondent shall make available to the Board payroll and other
records to facilitate the checking of the amount due.
The character and scope of the unfair labor practices engaged in by the Respond-
ent, indicate an intent to defeat self-organization of its driver-employees. It will
therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by 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. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Local Union No. 310, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John
Foley, Dave Egleston, Robert Pry, Alexander Toro, Frank Koenig, and John
Kozacki, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. All regular, relief, and special drivers, and all plant men employed by the
Respondent , excluding office and clerical employees , guards, and supervisors, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The Union was, in July 1955, and at all times material since has been, the
exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit and by entering into indi-
vidual contracts with the drivers, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the discharges, by refusing to bargain, and by offering financial inducements
to its employees to enter into individual contracts , the Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. 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.]
International Idlewild Catering Corporation and International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA-6124.
August 14, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 13, 1959, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher issued his
Intermediate Report 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
124 NLRB No. 66.
525543-60-vol. 124-34
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations.
ORDER
Upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board orders that International Idlewild Catering Corporation,
New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
,shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Associa-
tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the duly certified exclusive bargain-
ing representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All drivers and helpers employed by it at Idlewild Airport, Long
Island, New York, including lead drivers, excluding office clerical,
professional employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
,or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is found will
,effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit described above with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Post at its offices in New York, New York (including its estab-
lishment at Idlewild Airport, Long Island, New York), copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of the said
-notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second
Region, after having been duly signed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained 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 the Re-
,1 In 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."
INTERNATIONAL IDLEWILD CATERING CORPORATION 515
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Notify -the- said Regional Director in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply
herewith.
MEMBER RODGERS, concurring :
I agree with the conclusion of my colleagues that the Respondent
refused to bargain with the Union as the certified bargaining repre-
sentative of employees in the appropriate unit.
I rest this conclusion solely upon the fact that the Regional Direc-
tor's determination, made pursuant to the authority conferred on him
by the consent-election agreement, that Saladino was eligible to vote
at the election, does not appear to be arbitrary or capricious.
Saladino was a chauffeur employed at the Respondent's terminal
restaurant at Idlewild Airport and, as such, was encompassed within
the unit description in the consent-election agreement. The terms of
such agreement included "all drivers and helpers employed by the
employer at Idlewild Airport, L.I., N.Y....
I specifically reject the Trial Examiner's finding that the conduct
of the Board agent in consulting Respondent's General Manager Hall
as to the challenge of Saladino's ballot, and thereafter permitting
Saladino to cast an unchallenged ballot, was proper.
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 our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of all our employees in the appropriate unit
described below with respect to wages, hours, and other condi-
tions of employment, and if an agreement is reached, put it in
the form of a signed contract. The appropriate unit is:
All drivers and helpers employed by us at Idlewild Air-
port, L.I., N.Y., including lead drivers, excluding office cleri-
cal and professional employees, watchmen, guards, and
supervisors.
INTERNATIONAL IDLEWILD CATERING CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not he altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
516 DECISIONS -,OF ,NATIONAL,,-LABOR RELATIONSr $OARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
This proceeding involves charges that Internationale Idlewild Catering Corpora=
tion, New York,..New York, herein called the Respondent, has since on or about
June 28, 1958, refused to bargain collectively with International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO, the Charging Party, herein' called the Union, as the repre-
sentative of its employees in an appropriate unit, although the Union was the
representative of the said employees and requested such bargaining. It' is alleged
that this conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act. After the issuance of a
complaint by the General Counsel 1 and the filing of an answer by the Respondent,
a hearing was held before me on various dates between January 5 and 15, 1959,
inclusive, at-New York, New York.' All parties were represented and participated
fully in the hearing.2 The General, Counsel filed a brief, which has been duly
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT . .. .
There -is no dispute, 'and it is found, that the Respondent is, and' at all material
times has been, engaged in commerce within the meaning of the. Act, and its
operations meet the Board's jurisdictional standards; 3 and the Union is, and at all
material time has been, a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
A. Sequence of events
OnApril 9, 1958, the Union filed with the Board a. petition requesting certification
as bargaining agent of all drivers and helpers employed by the Respondent at
Idlewild Airport, Long Island , New York, including lead drivers, with certain exclu-
si'ons.4 On May 7 5 the parties entered into an Agreement for Consent Election,
herein called the Agreement, which provided that the Regional Director 6 should
'conduct an election among all drivers and helpers' employed by the Respondent at
Idlewild Airport, Long Island, New York, including lead drivers, with certain exclu-
sions, to determine whether or not they wanted to be represented by the Union in
collective bargaining. At the same time, the parties initialed a list of drivers, lead
drivers and helpers employed by the Respondent. The Agreement was approved
by the Regional Director on May 12. The election was held on May 21, and the
tally of ballots shows that eight votes were cast for the Union, seven votes were cast
against the Union, that there were.no challenged ballots, and that accordingly a
majority of the valid votes counted had been cast for the Union. On May 23,'the
Respondent filed with the Regional Director objections to the conduct of the
election, which will be discussed in more detail below. On June 19 the Regional
Director issued his report on objections in which he found that the Respondent's
objections lacked merit. He accordingly certified the Union as the bargaining rep-
resentative of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit.
On June 23 Roy R. Stewart, a representative of the Union, conferred with
Alexander M. Leslie, the Respondent's director of labor relations. The details of
their discussion will be related hereafter. On July 9 the Respondent filed with the
Regional Director a petition for reconsideration of his, report on objections and
certification of representatives. On July 14 the Regional Director denied the peti-
1 The designation "General Counsel" includes the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board and his representatives at the hearing.
2 The Respondent served a subpoena daces tecum and a subpoena ad testifcandum on
the Regional Director. The Regional Director's motion to quash both subpena's was
granted at the hearing. See McMullen Leavens Company, 83 NLRB 948, footnote 3.
3 The Respondent is a New York corporation with its principal office in New York,
New York. It is engaged in the business of processing and delivering food and perform-
ing related services for restaurants and also processing and delivering meals to airlines
for service during flight. During the year October 1957 to October 1958, the Respondent
shipped to airlines which were engaged' in interstate commerce products valued at in
excess of $250,000. The Board has found that the Respondent is engaged in commerce.
International Idlewild Catering Corp., 110 NLRB 1639.
4 This is the same unit which the Board .found appropriate in 1954. International
Idlewild Catering Corp., 110 NLRB 1639, 1.640.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein refer to the year 1958.
6 The term "Regional Director" designates the Regional Director for the Second Region
of the National Labor Relations Board.
INTERNATIONAL IDLEWILD CATERING CORPORATION 517
Lion for reconsideration. On July 17 the Respondent again requested the Regional
Director to reconsider. On July 22 the Regional Director replied- that he was
"still of the opinion that the conclusion of the report was justly arrived at on the
basis of the facts." On August 16 Stewart wrote to Leslie, advising him that the
Union was prepared to begin negotiations covering the employees in the appro-
priate unit, and suggesting a date during the week of August 18 for the beginning
of discussions. On August 19 the Respondent's personnel director replied. The
nature of this reply will be discussed below. In the meantime, on August 18, the
Respondent had filed with the Regional Director a petition for reconsideration of
report on objections and certification of representatives. This document concludes
with a request that the Regional Director either set aside the election and order a
new election or, in the alternative, refer the entire matter to a hearing. On August
25, the Union filed the charges in the instant case. On October 6, the Regional
Director advised the Respondent, in writing, that he could find no basis for setting
aside the election or for referring the matter to a hearing.
B. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that all drivers and helpers em-
ployed by the Respondent at Idlewild Airport, Long Island, New York, including
lead drivers, excluding office clerical and professional employees, watchmen, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act. This is the unit which the parties described in the Agreement. Accord-
ingly, since I have no authority to vary the unit agreed upon by the parties, I find
that the unit described in the complaint is the appropriate unit.?
C. The Union's majority status
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that at all times since June 19 the
Union has been the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit and has been and now is the
exclusive representative of all employees in the unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining. The Regional Director's certification of June 19 is, of course, prima
facie proof of the Union's majority status on and after that date. The Respondent's
answer sets up as an affirmative defense that the certification is "null and void"
because the Regional Director's actions in connection therewith were arbitrary and
capricious.
At the outset, it might be profitable to examine the type of issues raised by the
Respondent's affirmative defense. The Agreement provides: "the determination of
the Regional Director shall be final and binding upon any question, including ques-
tions as to the eligibility of voters" [emphasis supplied]. Accordingly, I do not
consider it my function to make any findings of fact on matters already determined
by the Regional Director, nor to decide whether or not he committed error. The
Respondent, having agreed that the Regional Director's determinations were to be
final and binding, is not entitled to have them reviewed. I cannot disturb the
Regional Director's rulings, except on the sole ground that they were arbitrary or
capricious. Something more than error is necessary to spell out arbitrary or capri-
cious action .8
The Respondent contends that the Board's agent who conducted the election acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in certain respects. But the matter is not properly before
me. To the extent that no exceptions were timely filed with the Regional Director
with regard to any aspects of the election itself,9 it is too late ( and in the wrong
7Buffalo Arms, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 224 F. 2d 105 (C.A. 2). The Respondent argues
that the simultaneous initialing of a list of drivers, helpers, and lead drivers, all of
whom were employed at the Respondent's flight kitchen at Idlewild Airport, indicates
that the parties intended to limit the unit to the flight kitchen. I find no merit in this
contention. Had the parties desired to limit the unit to the drivers employed at the Re-
spondent's flight kitchen, they could readily have so worded the Agreement. Moreover,
the Board has held that the parties' agreement upon an eligibility list does not have the
force and effect that the Respondent contends. Norris-Thermador Corporation, 119
NLRB 1301.
'McMullen Leavens Company, 83 NLRB 948, 962; Buffalo Arms, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,
supra; and N.L.R.B. v. J. W. Rem Co., 243 F. 2d 356, 358 ('C.A. 3).
9 Such as the claim that "Leslie [the Respondent's agent at the election] was improperly
coerGed,,by. Mr. Schneider ,[the Bgard's aggnt.at the election], in.signing,,the tally, of
ballots" which was not the basis of any objection submitted to the Regional Director
at any time.
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forum) to raise them now; the Respondent has slept on its rights. To the extent
that exceptions were timely filed with the Regional Director with regard to other
aspects of the election, as to which the Regional Director made findings, these will
be discussed below.
Let us turn now to a consideration of the Respondent's objections to the conduct
of the election. It alleged that "the employees involved" in the election were the
employees in the Respondent's flight kitchen at Idlewild Airport, that Charles Sala-
dino, who was not an employee of the Respondent's flight kitchen and whose name
did not appear on the list of eligible employees, was permitted to vote without chal-
lenge because Lois Sullivan, the Respondent's observer, misunderstood the nature
of her right to challenge and protest such vote and was under the impression that
because the Board agent conducting the election had permitted Saladino to vote
that therefore no challenge or protest was proper. It further alleged that the ballot
"improperly cast" by Saladino was determinative of the results of the election. In
his report on objections, the Regional Director held that the Respondent's observer
at the election had been properly instructed by the Board's agent as to the challenge
procedure and her right to challenge doubtful voters. He further found that when
Saladino presented himself for voting he was challenged by the Respondent's ob-
server because his name did not appear on the list of eligible voters, that Robert
Hall, the Respondent's general manager, told the Board's agent that Saladino was
entitled to vote, and that thereafter Saladino's name was added to the list of eligible
voters and he was allowed to vote. The Regional Director determined that the
Board's agent had obtained authorization for Saladino's voting from the Respondent's
general manager, "a person he had every right to recognize as an authorized spokes-
man for" the Respondent, and that the objection to his voting therefore constituted
a post-election challenge. Aside from that, the Regional Director determined that
in any event Saladino, being a driver employed at the Respondent's Terminal Res-
taurant at Idlewild Airport, was an eligible voter because his work was encompassed
within the unit defined in the Agreement. In so doing, the Regional Director
rejected the Respondent's contention that the parties had intended to confine the
appropriate unit to drivers at the flight kitchen at the Airport.
Sullivan gave a statement to the Regional Director's agent which, among other
things, contained the following: "Before the beginning of the first voting period
Mr. Schneider [the Board agent who conducted the election] explained fully the
duties and functions of an observer including what a challenged vote was." In view
of this statement, it is found that the Regional Director's determination that Sullivan
had been properly instructed by the Board's agent as to the challenge procedure and
her right to challenge doubtful voters was not arbitrary or capricious.
Hall gave a statement to the Regional Director's agent which, among other
things, contained the following: "Saladino does not work in the flight kitchen. He
is employed by the International Idlewild Catering Corp., as a chauffeur at the
Terminal Restaurant." In view of this statement, and the definition of the unit
contained in the Agreement, it is found that the Regional Director was not arbitrary
or capricious in determining that Saladino was an eligible voter whose ballot was
properly counted.10
The Respondent also maintains that the Regional Director's investigation of the
objections to the conduct of the election was arbitrary and capricious. The record
shows that Milton A. Shaham, an agent of the Regional Director, took statements
from numerous witnesses pertaining to the Respondent's objections. Shaham made
a comprehensive and impartial investigation. The only possible indication that
Shaham's conduct was in any way improper was the undenied testimony of Leslie
that on June 9 Shaham, while at the Respondent's premises, talke3 to him and, in
Leslie's words, this occurred:
Q. Did he mention names?
A. Yes, Mr. Hall, Mrs. Sullivan and myself, and that, "Of course, I know
that in this type of proceeding I already have two strikes against me."
10 It is also found that the Regional Director's determination that the Respondent's
objection to Saladino's voting constituted a post-election challenge was not arbitrary
or capricious. It should be noted in this connection that, as the Regiolal Director deter-
mined that Saladino was in any event eligible to vote, the outcome of the election could
not have been affected by any alleged failure to segregate his ballot rending determina-
tion of his eligibility. The Respondent seems to have recognized thia, for in its third
request for reconsideration it stated :"concededly the basic problem is whether or not
Saladino is in fact an employee within the definition of the appropriate unit." For the
reasons given, it is further found that the Regional Director did not act arbitrarily or
capriciously in denying the Respondent's various motions for reconsideration.
INTERNATIONAL IDLEWILD CATERING CORPORATION 519
Q. Who said this?
A. Mr. Shaham.
Assuming, without deciding, that Shaham made the remark attributed to him by
Leslie, this single isolated incident is in my opinion insufficient, standing alone as it
does, to substantiate the Respondent's contention that the Regional Director's investi-
gation was arbitrary and capricious. In this connection, it is perhaps not without
significance that, so far as the record shows, the Respondent failed to register any
complaint concerning this remark until the hearing in the instant case.
Finally, the Respondent urges that the Regional Director acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in turning down its request that the matter be submitted to a hearing."
On this subject, the Agreement provides: "The method of investigation of objections
and challenges, including the question whether a hearing should be held in con-
nection therewith, shall be determined by the Regional Director, whose decision
shall be final and binding." [Emphasis supplied.] I therefore find no merit in the
Respondent's contention that the Regional Director's refusal to hold a hearing was
arbitrary and capricious.12
I conclude that the Respondent's affirmative defense-that the Regional Director
acted arbitrarily or capriciously-lacks merit; that the certification of the Union
issued by the Regional Director on June 19 was valid, and that at all times since
June 19 the Union has been the exclusive statutory bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit.
D. The Respondent's refusal to bargain
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that on or about June 28, and on
various dates thereafter, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain about
terms and conditions of employment, as the exclusive bargaining agent of all em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, but that the Respondent refused, and continues to
refuse, to do so.
As previously mentioned, Stewart and Leslie conferred on June 23-after the
Regional Director's certification of the Union and before the Respondent filed its
first petition for reconsideration. At that time Stewart stated that the Union had
been certified to represent the employees in the appropriate unit and wanted to
know when negotiations could start. Leslie replied that some kind of hearing was
going to be held, and that he had to wait for that. Stewart answered that he never
heard of a hearing after the issuance of a certification. Leslie then suggested that
Stewart check with his counsel and Stewart said he would do so.
On July 14 (after the Regional Director denied the first motion for reconsidera-
tion) Stewart telephoned to Leslie and said: "Well, your application was rejected.
Let's sit down." Leslie replied that the Respondent had engaged new counsel who
had advised them to continue efforts to set the election aside, and added: "Why
not wait until all proceedings are finished?" Stewart answered: "If that's the story,
that's it."
As previously mentioned, Stewart wrote to Leslie on August 16-after the first
two petitions for reconsideration had been turned down. In this letter Stewart
pointed out that the Union was ready to start negotiations, and suggested that
discussions start during the week of August 18. This was received by the Respond=
ent on August 18. On August 18, the Respondent filed its third petition for re-
consideration. Then on August 19 the Respondent's personnel director replied to
Stewart:
Mr. Leslie is on vacation and is not expected until next week. Your letter
will be brought to his attention but I do understand that the matter of certifica-
tion to which you refer is presently under reconsideration by the Board.
On October 15-after the filing of the instant charges and after the Regional
Director had denied the Respondent's third petition for reconsideration-Stewart
telephoned to Leslie and told him that the Union was ready to negotiate a contract
with the Respondent. Leslie replied that there was another hearing pending and
until it was disposed of there was nothing he could do, but promised to call Stewart
11 This request for a hearing appears to have been made for the first time on August 18,
almost 3 months after the original objections were filed and approximately 2 months
after the issuance of the certification.
'- Merrimac Hat Corporation, 85 NLRB 329, 333 ; N.L.R.B. V. Same-Glassman Shoe
Corporation, 201 F. 2d 238 (C.A. 1) ; N.L.R.B. v. J. W. Rex Co., swpra; N.L.R.B. v.
The Standard Transformer Company, 202 F. 2d 846 (C.A. 6) ; and N.L.R.B. v. Carlton
Wood Products, 201 F. 2d 863 (C.A. 9).
520 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the next day to give him more particulars about the hearing. Leslie did, accord-
ingly, call Stewart on October 16, but the record does not show what was said.
On October 22, Carl S. Carlson, a representative of the Union, verbally asked
Leslie and the attorney for the Respondent if the Respondent would recognize the
Union in accordance with the certification. The Respondent's attorney deciined
to do so.
At the hearing, Leslie testified in effect that, on advice of counsel, he would refrain
from recognizing the Union until such time as the validity of its certification had been
finally determined.
The Respondent contends that the Union made no clear and unequivocal request to
bargain which the Respondent refused to honor. In this connection, the Respondent
maintains that, after Leslie explained the situation to him, Stewart "seemed satisfied
and did not pursue the demand for bargaining again." I cannot agree, I find that
there was a clear and unequivocal demand to bargain made by Stewart to Leslie on
June 23,13 that there is no evidence that Stewart was "satisfied" with Leslie's refusal
to honor it or that he "accepted" Leslie's reply, or that the demand was ever with-
drawn. On the contrary, the demand was repeated on July 14, At.gust 16, October
15 and 22, but the Respondent persisted in its refusal. The Respcndent was under
a statutory duty to accede to these demands, for the Union was the certified represen-
tative of the employees in the unit at all times after June 19. Neitaer the pendency
of the Respondent's various petitions for reconsideration nor the filing of the instant
charge suspended this statutory obligation.14 It is accordingly found that, at all
times since June 23, 1958, the Respondent has refused to recognize or bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. It is further found that
this conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced the Respondent's employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and there `ore violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) 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 Idlewild Catering Corporation is, and at all material times has
been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is, and at all material times
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All drivers and helpers employed by the Respondent at Idlev ild Airport, Long
Island, New York, including lead drivers, excluding office clerical professional em-
ployees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, was on J ine 19, 1958, and
at all times since has been, the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-
described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within th, ; meaning of Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on June 23, 1958, and at all times since, to bargai.i collectively with
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as exclusive representative of
the employees in the above-described unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(3)(5) of the Act.
6. By the above conduct, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the A;t, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the r. leaning of Section
8(a)( I) of the Act.
7. The above-described unfair labor practices tend to lead to I ibor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce, and constitute un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec:ion 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
13Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 185 F. 2d 732, 741 (C.A., D.C.), cert. denied 341
U.S 914.
14 N.L.R.B. v. Taormina, 207 F. 2d 251, 254 (C.A. 5) ; Trinity Seel Company, Inc.,
103 NLRB 1470; The Borden Company, 108 NLRB 807, 812; and Scm'l Bingham's Son
Mfg . Company, 111 NLRB 508, 510.