Jordan Bus Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 11, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 717 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

JORDAN BUS COMPANY 717
JORDAN BUS COMPANY and DENCO BUS LINES, INC. and
AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC
RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 1480, AFL. Case No. 16-CA-576. January 11, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 9, 1953, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report on the above-entitled proceeding , finding
that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1),
(3), and (5)of the Act, and recommending that the Respondents
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report.
. 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 thereto,
and the entire record of the case , and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the following modifications:
1. The Trial Examiner found , and we agree , that on and
after September 19, 1953, the Union was the majority repre-
sentative of the Respondents ' bus operators , and that the
Respondents ' action in unilaterally reducing wages as of
October 1, 1952, constitutes a refusal to bargain violation of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
However, we are unable to agree with the Trial Examiner
that such wage reduction was made for discriminatory reasons
rather than for economic reason as contended by the Respond-
ents.
The record shows that the Respondents found themselves in
a hazardous financial condition at the time the reduction was
announced and effectuated , and that they had been operating at
a loss for sometime prior thereto. This condition is clearly
established by the profit and loss statements and Interstate
Commerce Commission reports introduced at the hearings.
Their accuracy is not challenged. That the Respondents
accepted delivery of and made substantial payments on the
purchase price of several new busses during this period is not
inconsistent with their asserted justification of the wage de-
crease , for, it is uncontroverted that the obligation to accept
the busses was undertaken more than 1 1/2 years before the
acts complained of herein . In addition, it was credibly testified
by the Respondents ' president , that it is far more economical
to operate new busses than old equipment constantly in need of
repair and hampering scheduling of runs . The foregoing, com-
bined with the fact that the reduction in wages was established
for all the Employers ' employees and supervisors at their
107 NLRB No. 148
337593 0 - 55 - 47
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
various operations and was not confined to the bus drivers in
the unit here involved , persuade us that the reduction was not
discriminatorily motivated . Moreover, as hereinafter set forth,
the Respondents did not commit any independent discriminatory
acts or otherwise commit any other unfair labor practice.
Accordingly, we find that the reduction in wages was not dis-
criminatorily designed to undermine or discourage membership
in the Union and, therefore , that this action of the Respondents
did not constitute a violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the record
establishes that the Respondents refused to bargain in good
faith with the Union during the negotiations on the proposed
contract submitted by the Union . We do not find that the be-
havior and attitude of the Respondents at any of the negotiating
meetings indicated that the Respondents bargained in form only,
without a genuine desire ultimately to reach an accord with the
Union.
The record clearly demonstrates that the matter of wage
rates was discussed and the inability of the parties to agree to
a mutually acceptable rate was the reason for the breakdown
in negotiations . The failure of the Respondents to accede to the
Union's wage demands cannot , on this recdrd, be attributed to
bad faith on the part of the Respondents.' Indeed , we are satis-
fied that a bona fide economic impasse was reached by the
parties with respect to wages . Moreover , the parties almost
succeeded in arriving at a solution to the problem of seniority
and the Respondents consented to many other provisions of the
proposed agreement . Although it is true that the Respondents'
attitude toward the Union might not have been one of complete
cordiality , nevertheless , we do not find that their behavior,
when reviewed in the light of the entire record, is sufficient to
establish that the Respondents refused to bargain in good faith.'
3. The Trial Examiner's conclusion on that the strike, which
began on November 10, 1952 , after the breakdown of negotia-
tions, was an unfair labor practice strike, is based on his prior
finding of antecedent unfair labor practices by the Respondents,
to wit , unilaterally and discriminatorily instituting wage reduc-
tions and failing to bargain in good faith during negotiations
which immediately preceded the strike. However, since we have
found above that the unilateral reduction of wages was the only
unfair labor practice committed by the Respondent , there re-
mains for consideration only the causal relationship of such
conduct to the strike.
On this record , we are satisfied that there was no causal
relationships between the unilateral action taken by the Re-
spondent and the strike . Thus, it appears that the announcement
of the unilateral action was made on September 26, 1952,
whereas the strike was not called until November 10, 1952.
Moreover , before taking strike action, the Union failed to pro-
'Betty Brooks Co., 99 NLRB 1237
2 Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company , 106 NLRB 2.
JORDAN BUS COMPANY 719
test the reduction except by suggesting, on October 14, '1-952,
that the 4-cent per mile rate prevailing before the reduction,
be establishedas the base from whichwage negotiations should
begin.
Finally and significantly during the period between the uni-
lateral reduction and the strike, the parties, as found above,
did bargain to a genuine impasse with respect to the union wage
demands which at all times were higher than the wage rate
prevailing prior to the reduction.
We therefore conclude and find that the strike was a result
of a genuine impasse in bargaining and was purely economic
in nature.
4. We also disagree with the Trial Examiner's finding that
the individual solicitation by the Respondents of the striking
employees to return to work constituted an unfair labor prac-
tice. The Board's rule with regard to this type of solicitation is
well established.' Because the record fails to establish an over-
all illegal opposition to the purposes of the Act on the part of
the Respondents, and because the letters sent to the strikers
were noncoercive and contained no promise of benefit, we are
not persuaded that the solicitaton was reasonably calculated
to undermine the authority of the Union. Accordingly, we find
that whatever solicitation may have occurred did not violate
Section 8 (a) (1) or (5) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents failed to bargain by uni-
laterally reducing wages, we shall order them to cease and
desist therefrom. However, since we have found that the Re-
spondents thereafter, in fact, bargained in good faith with the
Union, we find it unnecessary in this case to issue an affirma-
tive bargaining order.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re-
spondents, Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines, Inc.,
their officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from making unilateral changes in
wages or rates of pay or in any other similar or related manner
refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Association
of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, Local 1480, AFL, or any other exclusive bargaining
representative of all bus operators employed by the Respondents
at their Hugo, Oklahoma, terminal, including regular relief
drivers, but excluding maintenance employees, office and
clerical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
3The Texas Company, 93 NLRB 1358. 1360
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their places of business copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."4 Copies of such
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Six-
teenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents'
representatives, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by them for a period of sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it
hereby is , dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondents
violated Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4In 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 "Pur-
suant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the
Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT make unilateral changes in wages or
rates of pay or in any other similar or related manner
refuse to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Asso-
ciation of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Em-
ployees of America, Local 1480, AFL, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all our employees
in the unit described below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of'em-
ployment; and, if an understanding is reached, we will
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All bus operators employed at our Hugo, Oklahoma,
terminal including regular relief drivers, but ex-
JORDAN BUS COMPANY 721
cluding maintenance employees , office and clerical
employees , and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
JORDAN BUS COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ................ By....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
DENCO BUS LINES, INC.,
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
Upon a charge duly filed by Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America, Local 1480, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board,I by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
(Fort Worth, Texas), issued a complaint dated March 3, 1953, against Jordan Bus Company
and Denco Bus Lines, Inc , herein called the Respondents or the Companies, alleging that the
Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of
the charge and the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondents
and the Union.
In substance the complaint alleges that in March and June 1952, the Respondents refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of a majority of their employees in
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining , and about September 26, 1952,
and thereafter refused to bargain with the Union as the certified representative of their em-
ployees in an appropriate unit , that about September 26, the Respondents discriminatorily
reduced the pay rates of their employees and about November 10 the employees, because
of the unfair labor practices, ceased work and engaged in a strike By reason of these acts
the Respondents engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act.
The Respondents duly filed their joint answer in which they admit certain allegations of the
complaint but deny the commission of any unfair labor practices as alleged therein.
Pursuant to a notice a hearing was held at Ardmore, Oklahoma, on April 8, 9, and 10, 1953.
before the undersigned Trial Examiner The General Counsel and the Respondents were
represented by counsel and the Union by its representatives, all of whom participated in the
hearing The parties waived oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing and were advised
of their right to file briefs in the matter. No briefs have been submitted to the undersigned
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Companies, each incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, are engaged in
the interstate transportation of passengers and mail by bus and maintain their principal office
'The General Counsel and his representatives at the hearing are herein referred to as the
General Counsel; the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and place of business at Hugo, Oklahoma The Companies at all times material were, and are,
operated as an integrated enterprise, with common stock ownership, common officers, and
the same general manager. Each of the Companies operate under certificates granted by the
Interstate Commerce Commission The undersigned finds that the Companies are engaged in
commerce as defined in the Act
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, Local 1480, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. Organizational activities
Albert R. Long, president of Local 1084, and employed by Jordan as a driver since 1941,
stated that about July 1951, the Regional Director conducted an election among the drivers of
Jordan to determine whether they desired to be represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen for the purposes of collective bargaining , which the union lost.2 Apparently there
were no further organizational activities until February 1952
On January 29, 1952,3 A. R. Jordan, presidentofJordan Bus Company and manager of Denco
Bus Lines, distributed to the employees copies of a plan to share in the profits of these Com-
panies. Long said the drivers did not understand the proposed plan , became "excited" about
the letter, and decided to call in representatives of the Union for the purpose of organizing
the employees of both cojnpanies
About March 1, driver Calvin Brown testified he came into the Hugo terminal where Jordan
asked him if the "boys were signing up for a union," and he replied they were Jordan re-
marked he could not "say anything either way much" but the men were going "to learn their
lesson." He added that while these men might drive for someone else they would not work for
him. Brown thereupon went into the station and a few minutes later Jordan came to him and
inquired if all the drivers had signed up and Brown answered that was his understanding.
Jordan then left. Jordan admitted he was "seeking information" and that Brown, in response
to his inquiry, said most of the employees had signed up in the Union. He then told Brown the
men could do as they pleased i,?,egard to organization.
Long testified that about March 20, the Companies rearranged certain schedules and as a
result he was removed from his regular run and put on the extra board. Jordan said Long was
taken off his regular run because of a reduction in service and had less seniority than drivers
retained.4
2. The Union' s attempt to secure recognition
Guy E. Tipton, one of the vice presidents of the International Union, stated he was assigned
to assist the Union and on March 2, he and A. F. Steele, also an international vice president,
called upon F. A. Bodovitz, attorney for the Companies, and Jordan, at Bodovitz' office in
Tulsa Tipton said the purpose of the meeting was to obtain recognition of the Union as the
bargaining agent for the drivers and he proposed that the employees of both Companies be
included in a single contract. Bodovitz replied the Companies were operated separately and
there should be two agreements While the parties did not discuss specific contract terms,
Bodovitz indicated they might get together if the Union submitted a proposed agreement which
would be effective for 5 to 7 years The meeting concluded with the union representatives
agreeing to submit a proposed contract.
2 Case No. 16-RC-786. The parties consented to the election which was held on June 28 and
20, 1951 The tally of ballots shows 10 for the union, 17 against, and 2 challenged ballots. No
objections were filed to the conduct of the same.
3All dates refer to 1952, unless otherwise stated.
4The instances related by Brown and Long occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing
of the charge and, while such acts maybe considered as background, the undersigned does not
rely upon this evidence to support any of the findings herein.
JORDAN BUS COMPANY 723
About March 15, the parties met at the same place, at which time the union representatives
submitted a proposed agreement which included a demand for a wage increase from 4 to 6
cents per mile, and other monetary benefits Jordan said the demands would cost the Com-
panies a considerable amount of money and he could not accept any such terms When Tipton
suggested that he give further consideration to the proposals he replied that was not necessary.
Bodovitz referred to the results of the previous election and stated there may be a substantial
number of employees who did not desire to be represented by the Union. The parties were
unable to reach any understanding and the meetingended without any arrangement for a future
meeting Tipton decided to do nothing further until the Union had been certified by the Board
and then went to St. Louis.
Bodovitz testified that at the first meeting he told Tipton to submit separate contracts for
each of the Companies and subsequently he presented a single agreement covering both the
Companies At the second meeting the parties had a general discussion of the agreement but,
in view of the money demands and the fact that only one contract was submitted, Bodovitz
rejected the same At one of these meetings Bodovitz told Tipton he desired long-term con-
tracts, effective for 3, 5, or 7 years.
3 The Union's certification
On June 6, the Union filed a petition for certification and on August 22, the Board issued its
decision wherein it found as the appropriate unit:
All bus operators employed by Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines, Inc., at their
Hugo, Oklahoma, terminal, including regular relief drivers, but excluding maintenance
employees, office and clerical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act as
amended,
and directed that an election be conducted among these employees to determine whether they
desired to be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining.5 The election
was held on September 19 and of the 44 employees eligible to vote, 28 voted for the Union, 13
against, and 2 ballots were challenged No objections having been filed to the conduct of the
election, the Regional Director, on behalf of the Board, duly issued his certification of repre-
sentatives, dated Friday, September 26 Jordan, who acted as observer at the election, said he
received a copy of the certification on Tuesday, September 30.
4 The Companies' unilateral action reducing pay rates
Jordan admitted that on September 26, without prior consultation with or notification to the
Union, he delivered letters to the employees of both the Companies advising them that effec-
tive October 1 the rate would be cut from 4 to 3 cents per mile for drivers, and trips paid on
a flat rate, as well as the wages of salaried employees, would be reduced 25 percent. He also
informed the drivers that schedules would be reduced 25 percent as soon as he was able to
prepare and obtain approval of new schedules The letter recited that the reductions were
caused by losses suffered by the Companies in July and August, which amounted to approxi-
mately $ 8,500 and $ 9,400, respectively
Jordan testified that he assumed active management of Jordan upon the death of his father
about July 1945, and at all times material was manager or president of Denco 6 Jordan, on the
basis of 29 years' experience in the bus business, stated that the Companies, and other bus
lines in the area, operate at a loss during the first quarter of each year and that normally the
best months are July and August. At the hearing Jordan produced profit-and-loss statements
covering Jordan's operations for the period January through October, which disclose that it
suffered losses from January through April, made a profit in May and June, and operated at a
loss for the remaining months Similar records for Denco show it operated at a loss during
the period June through October In addition thereto, the Jordan company submitted a com-
pilation of its profit and loss statements for July-August covering the years 1945 to 1952,
which disclose a consistent profit during this interval, except for 1952. Jordan admitted that
5Case No. 16-RC-1116.
6Jordan entered into "a deal" to buy Denco, which was then "broke," about February 1951.
However, since he purchased certain notes of the company without prior approval of the
Interstate Commerce Commission, receivership proceedings ensued and subsequently, about
June 1, 1952, the receiver "turned it over" to Jordan
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the wage reduction of 1952, was the only time he had ever taken such action, although his
father may have done so in about 1924 Jordan also conceded that from 1930 or 1931, wage
increases had been granted on 3 or 4 occasions Jordan said that the business decline in July
and August was attributable to drought conditions in the area which seriously affected all types
of business
Duncan McRae, part owner of Union Transportation Company of Tulsa and whose line con-
nected with Jordan, substantiated Jordan's testimony that normally bus business was bad
during the first quarter of the year and that June, July, and August were the best months.
McRae also stated that his revenue from operations in 1952 were lower than in the preceding
year
Moss Patterson, rancher and formerly in the bus business, stated that the drought in the
summer of 1952 was severe and generally affected business conditions in southern Oklahoma.
5 The refusal to bargain
The General Counsel's Case
In the early part of October, Tipton returned to Ardmore and at a meeting with the drivers
was informed of the wage reduction. Tipton, with the assistance of the drivers, then prepared
a proposed agreement and on October 14, called Jordan and told him he was ready to submit
the same. The parties apparently agreed to meet on October 20, at Tulsa In the course of
this conversation Tipton mentioned the recent reduction and stated that negotiations should
be conducted on the basis of 4 cents per mile The next day Bodovitz called Tipton and asked
that the meeting be held at his office on October 22, and requested that a copy of the proposed
agreement be submitted to him prior to this date. Tipton agreed to the new date and about
October 20 left a copy of the agreement at Bodovitz' office.
The Meeting of October 21
On the above dateBodovitz asked Tipton to come to his office which he agreed to do, although
he pointed out the union committee had not yet arrived in Tulsa. Tipton met with Bodovitz and
Jordan and also McRae, whom Bodovitz stated had an agreement with another local of the
Union and might be helpful in the negotiations. Tipton made no objection to his presence. The
parties then discussed a few items of the contract with Bodovitz asking for a long-term
agreement and the drivers being responsible for all accidents Concerning wages, the repre-
sentatives of the Companies said they were unable to meet the demands of the Union, namely,
6 cents per mile Tipton stated he could not enter into any negotiations without the union
committee and the meeting ended with the parties agreeing to meet the next morning.
The Meeting of October 22
On this occasion Tipton and the union committee, consisting of three members,' met with
Bodovitz, Jordan, and McRae Bodovitz, who had madedeletions, changes, and additions in the
proposed agreement, presented the document to the union representatives and thereafter
discussion was had on some of the provisions contained therein The parties discussed a
seniority plan but encountered difficulties in its application to the Companies' operations on
either a system-wide or divisional basis and were unable to reach any agreement in this re-
spect The union representatives contended that 4 cents per mile should be the figure from
which wage negotiations should commence while representatives of the Companies took the
position that 3 cents per mile was all they could afford to pay Tipton said other provisions
were discussed without any progress being made In the course of the meeting Tipton said he
referred to the seriousness of the situation, that is the reduction in wages, and Bodovitz
replied that while he did not like strikes, if such action was necessary to settle the issues,
"let's get it behind us " The meeting lasted all day and concluded with arrangements to meet
on October 24
Following the meeting Tipton contacted the United States Conciliation Service and thereafter
at least one of its representatives, C. R. Richards or Jack Emory, attended sessions held by
the parties.
7 Long, S. D Smithwick, and Joseph E Russell.
JORDAN BUS COMPANY 725
The Meeting of October 24
On this date the parties outlined their positions to Conciliator Richards, who then assumed
charge of the meeting. Richards held joint sessions with the representatives and also conferred
with them separately throughout the day. Although various items of the proposed agreement
were discussed the parties were unable to reach any accord thereon. Obviously, the principal
issues were wages and seniority Tipton said the Companies offered but 3 cents per mile and
rejected the system-wide seniority plan requested by the Union. The Companies also rejected
vacations and other benefits as set forth in the Union's proposals. In the afternoon Richards
told the parties they appeared to be "hopelessly deadlocked." About that time Bodovitz,
according to Tipton, repeated his previous remarks concerning a strike, whereupon Tipton
and the union committee left the meeting Tipton requested Richards to notify him if anything
developed in the matter.
On October 29 the Union filed charges against the Companies.
The Strike of November 10
Long testified that a few days before the above date the Union held a meeting at which the
members discussed the wage cut, and apparently other matters on which the parties could not
agree , and the membership unanimously voted to go on strike The strike, as stated by Long,
was called principally because of the reduction in wages, with inability to agree upon a
seniority plan also a factor.
Tipton said he returned to Ardmore on November 10, and attempted to reach Jordan in an
effort to avert the strike, but he was unable to do so. He then told Long to talk to Jordan,
which he did and when Long reported Jordan refused to meet with Tipton, the latter wrote out
the strike notice Long delivered this notice to Jordan. The strike became effective midnight
November 10. Tipton said the wage cut and the failure to conclude a satisfactory agreement
precipitated the strike.
The Meeting of November 25
Through the efforts of Richards the parties meton November 25, at Bodovitz' office. Tipton
asserted they discussed wages, which was the "paramount issue" and at that time the Union
suggested a figure of 5 cents per mile, but "that didn't avail us anything." The Companies
insisted they were unable to pay more than 3 cents per mile and at, or before, the meeting
Jordan gave the union representatives profit and loss statements for the months July,
August, and September Jordan also offered to let an auditor, to be selected by the Union,
examine the Companies' records in this respect, but the Union did not accept this offer. Tipton
said that the Union considered seniority as a primary issue but the subject was not discussed
at this meeting. While the session lasted the entire day, Tipton stated the parties talked in
general terms and were unable to reach any agreement.
The Meeting of December 8
Emory, who conducted the meeting, requested the parties to submit new proposals in regard
to wages and Steele, present with the union representatives, suggested a rate of 42 cents per
mile At the same time the Companies proposed a minimum wage of $ 7.50 per day based on
250 miles at 3 cents per mile, with an extension of trips to enable the drivers to earn more
money. Tipton stated the Companies also proposed, although it was not "tied down," that as of
May 1, 1953, the mileage rate would be increased to 4 cents per mile, while the drivers on a
daily rate would be increased one-third While these proposals and seemingly other items
were discussed during the day the parties did not reach any agreement.
The Resumption of Operations
Jordan stated he did not intend to resume operations but in January 1953 the State Legisla-
ture prompted by public demand for bus service appointed a committee to investigate the
strike. Under the circumstances Jordan decided to resume operations so on January 31 he
sent letters to each of the striking employees advising them of the Companies' intention to
resume service and inquiring if they were willing to return to work under the same conditions
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as existed at the time of the stoppage. About 41 drivers were on strike and only 2 notified
Jordan they were ready to work On February 2 Jordan resumed service, under the above
conditions, between Hugo and Durant and Idabel with 4 drivers As of the date of the hearing
the Companies had about 15 operators, 5 of whom had gone on strike and were operating 9
busses whereas prior to the strike they operated about 30 busses.
A few days prior to February 2, McRae accompanied by Claude Thomison, union representa-
tive for the employees of Union Transportation Company, came to Ardmore and talked to
Long McRae told Long "pressure" was being put on Jordan to resume service and that the
drivers should accept the best offer they could and return to work, otherwise they would be
replaced. While McRae had no financial interest in the Companies his line ran into Ada where
he interchanged passengers with Jordan and Denco, the only lines operating out of Ada. The
cessation of service by the Companies seriously affected McRae's operation, and when serv-
ice was resumed the Union picketed at the terminals used jointly by McRae and the Companies,
which caused some trouble and inconvenience to passengers
Long said McRae called at his home and told him he would not work for Jordan any more
and accused him of "leading these boys into complete destruction." McRae suggested that
Long and the men see Jordan, accept his offer, and return to work Obviously, Long did not
follow McRae's advice
However, Long, at the suggestion of employees Sport McGown and Jim Stephens, arranged
a meeting with Jordan on February 10, which was attended by approximately 25 striking em-
ployees Representatives of the Union were not present at this meeting. McGown told Jordan
the drivers believed a discussion of this type might be beneficial whereupon Jordan stated,
"If you think this is a bargaining session, you are wrong The bargaining is over " Jordan
said he would like to have the men return but all he could afford was 3 cents per mile, with
the possibility of restoring the cut in May, provided the Companies had made a profit. The
men then voted to reject the offer and the meeting ended.
Jordan did not testify concerning this meeting
The Meeting of March 26, 1953
At Tipton's request the parties met on the above date at Tulsa. Tipton announced the parties
would have no difficulty on contract terms, if they could agree upon wages, seniority, reason-
able grievance procedure, and vacations. The Umon asked for 5 cents per mile with a minimum
wage of $ 10 per day. The representatives of the Companies stated the strike had had an ad-
verse economic effect on their business and it was doubtful if they could pay even 3 cents per
mile or restore the wage cut on May 1, as previously suggested However, the parties did
discuss the Companies' proposal of 3 cents with the right of the Union to reopen the subject
of wages at anytime. The representatives also discussed seniority, with the Companies con-
tending that employees hired during the strike should be given seniority over the striking
employees The Companies further insisted they would not negotiate upon their right to ter-
minate the employment of strikers who had engaged in acts of violence during the strike.
While the parties discussed these subjects for about 2 hours they were unable to come to any
agreement. No further meetings, were held
The Companies' Case
Bodovitz testified that after examining the Union's proposed agreement with Jordan, he
made pencil notations on provisions which were objectionable and also wrote out changes he
desired in other provisions thereof At the first meeting with Tipton and the union committee,
which he fixed as October 21, Bodovitz went over the proposals with them item by item and
announced that the provisions not deleted or changed were acceptable to the Companies. With
respect to the remaining provisions Bodovitz explained why the Companies could not agree
to them Bodovitz stated he desired a "one-package" agreement covering the demands for
wages and fringe benefits The parties discussed seniority and tentatively agreed upon a plan
which broke down the operating system into 4 towns, and any vacancies occurring in these
places would be filled by employees, on application, having the greatest length of service with
the Companies Upon thus being assigned to a particular town the employee would then be
placed at the bottom of the seniority list for that town Bodovitz said other provisions were
also discussed Bodovitz was not certain whether wages were discussed at the first meeting,
but in any event the subject was brought up at the meeting of October 22. Bodovitz testified the
parties "were getting along verywell" until they came to wages and in response to the Union's
JORDAN BUS COMPANY 727
demand of 6 cents per mile, the Companies offered 3 cents. The parties made no progress on
this point and agreed to meet onOctober24. Bodovitz stated that during the first meeting when
no progress was being made in respect to the wage question, Tipton announced the "matter
was very serious" and either threatened or inferred a strike would take place. Bodovitz re-
plied he hoped a strike could be avoided but "if we had to have one, lets get it behind us."
At the meeting of October 24, both Bodovitz and Tipton outlined their positions to Richards,
who then took over the meeting Bodovitz said the principal issue was wages, and while the
parties discussed the matter they failed to make any progress even with the assistance of
Richards The meeting terminated in the afternoon when Tipton and the union committee
walked out of Bodovitz' office.
At the meeting of November 25 Bodovitz offered 3 cents per mile with a definite agreement
to increase the rate to 4 cents on May 1, 1953. The Union rejected this offer and at the same
time reduced its demand from 6 cents to 5 cents per mile, which was rejected by the Com-
panies. At this meeting, or a prior one, the Companies submitted profit and loss statements
as related by Tipton No agreement was concluded at this meeting.
On December 8, Bodovitz proposed a minimum of $ 7 50 per day, based on 3 cents per mile,
with a revision of schedules, where possible, to increase the "take-home" pay of the drivers
Bodovitz admitted that revision of the schedules would result in some drivers being removed
from regular runs and being placed on the extra board. The Companies also proposed to in-
crease the mileage rate to 4 cents and the mimmum wage to $ 10 on May 1. The proposal was
refused by the Union Similarly, Steele' s suggestion of 43 cents per mile was rejected by the
Companies The meeting adjourned without any agreement being reached.
At the meeting of March 26, 1953, Tipton said he believed the matter could be straightened
out if the parties could agree on seniority, wages, grievance, procedure, and vacations. When
Tipton stated the union rate to be 4 cents per mile with a $ 10 a day minimum, Bodovitz pointed
out they had increased Steele's proposal of 41 cents per tile. There was considerable dis-
cussion on this matter with the Union taking the position that Steele's proposal had not been
authorized. Bodovitz told the union representatives that because of the cessation of operations
and violence occurring during the strike business was very poor and the Companies could not
agree to grant increases on May 1, as previously offered The best he could offer was 3 cents,
with the right of the Union to reopen the wage provision at anytime. Bodovitz also stated that
the Companies would not negotiate upon their right to discharge or discipline strikers who had
engaged in acts of violence. He further stated that since the present employees were "entitled
to consideration" in respect to their continued employment, that fact would undoubtedly affect
the seniority provision on which tentative agreement had already been reached. The parties
failed to conclude any agreement so the meeting adjourned.
6. The purchase of new equipment in 1952
Jordan testified that in February he accepted delivery on 5 new busses and 4 more in August,
which he had ordered from General Motors Bus Corporation about a year or year and a half
prior thereto. He stated this equipment was ordered because of new operations and because he
believed busses might be difficult to obtain in the event of another war. Jordan said he paid for
the 5 busses delivered in February. However, he attempted to cancel the second order but
when the company offered delivery upon payment of the excise tax, and his note for the
purchase price, he accepted these terms Jordan paid $ 20,000 on the 4 busses in August and
$40,000 in December
7. The alleged acts of interference, restraint, and coercion; findings thereon
T. J. Wyrick stated he was employed by Jordan as a driver from 1940 to May 1, 1952, when
he was made foreman of the Companies' facilities at Idabel. As foreman, Wyrick was in charge
of the shop, employing 2 mechanics, and the bus station, employing 2 ticket agents and 2
porters. Wyrick was paid a salary of $400 per month and took the job with the understanding
that he would remain in the above capacity and at the same salary as long as Jordan operated
in Idabel
Prior to the election of September 19, Jordan told Wyrick that he did not think the Com-
panies would go union, but Wyrick declared they would, unless the attitude of the men changed.
Jordan replied if the employees did so, they would be sorry After the election Jordan said
Long, Sanders, and Stephens would never drive for him, irrespective of whether he signed an
agreement with the Union.
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When Wyrick's wages were cut 25 percent he complained to Jordan who told him all wages
had been reduced to avoid any showing of partiality and as soon as things were running
smoothly again his pay cut would be restored.
Wyrick also stated that about 10 days before the election, Jordan informed him that the
Denco operations would never show a profit, for if it did make money Jordan would increase
the rental on equipment leased to it, and if the Jordan Company indicated a profit he could
purchase new busses or put it into a feeder line. Accordingly, Jordan would be able to avoid
granting any wage increases because his books would indicate an operating loss.
Wyrick worked durng the strike until March 10, when he was discharged for refusing to
drive a bus.
Jordan admitted talking to Wyrick about the outcome of the election but denied that he said
the men would be sorry if the Union won the same He denied making any statement to the
effect that Long, Sanders, or Stephens would no longer drive for him. Jordan further denied
that he informed Wyrick all wages had been cut to prevent any showing or partiality and,
likewise, denied Wyrick's testimony concerning a plan to eliminate the disclosure of any
profit on the part of the Companies
Coy L. Tate testified that since 1942, except for service in the Armed Forces, he was head
mechanic for Jordan and exercised supervision over a few mechanics and helpers, as well as
2 porters, and had authority to hire and discharge such employees. Tate said that about
September 28, Jordan told him he was cutting the drivers to 3 cents per mile and "maybe
they'd quit " He further stated that on 2 or 3 occasions after the election Jordan said Long,
Sanders, and Stephens would never drive for him even if the matter was settled. Tate worked
during the strike until March 8, when he was discharged for refusing to drive a buse
Jordan denied that he discussed the pay cut with Tate, or that he made the statements re-
lated by him
It is undisputed that Wyrick and Tate were supervisory employees, so Jordan's statements
to them do not constitute interference, since there is no evidence that remarks were made to
rank-and-file employees, nor under circumstances where it reasonably could be inferred that
the statements could be heared or communicated to such employees.8 The undersigned so
finds.
Concluding Findings
It is undisputed that during March 1952, the Union requested recognition as the exclusive
bargaining agent in a unit consisting of all drivers employed by the Companies Representa-
tives of the Companies contended the single unit was inappropriate because they operated
separately and invited the Union to submit separate agreements covering the respective
employees. When, about March 15, the Union presented a single agreement, with demands for
a 2-cent per mile increase and other benefits, the Companies again questioned the appropri-
ateness of the bargaining unit and summarily rejected the monetary demands on the grounds
they would cost too much money. In view of the absence of any evidence bearing upon the
Union's majority or recognition of it on the part of the Companies, plus the fact that there was
some dispute concerning the unit, the undersigned concludes that the Companies did not un-
lawfully refuse to bargain on these occasions. In addition, the acts occurred more than 6
months before the filing and service of the charge and may be considered only, as it is here,
for background purposes to explain and clarify events occurring within the statutory period
(Gagnon Plating and Manufacturing Company, 97 NLRB 104, 107) The undersigned, therefore,
finds that the Companies did not refuse to bargain collectively in March 1952, as alleged in
the complaint.
Thereafter, on June 6, the Union filed a representation petition and pursuant to a decision
and direction of the Board an election was conducted on September 19, which was won by the
Union, and on September 26, the Board duly certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative for all the employees in the unit.
Jordan conceded, and it is found, that on September 26, without prior consultation with or
notification to the Union, he notified all employees of the Companies, including those in the
bargaining unit, that as of October 1, all wages and mileage rates would be reduced 25 per-
cent. The reduction became effective on the above date
8Scott R, Williams Incorporated, 99 NLRB 919; Consumers Cooperative Refinery Association,
77 NLRB 528, 530.
JORDAN BUS COMPANY 729
It is well settled that conduct of this character constitutes a clear violation of the Act.
Speaking of such action, the Board in its Sixteenth Annual Report (for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 1951) stated:
When an employer is aware of the existence of a properly designated bargaining repre-
sentative, he may not deal directly or indirectly with his employees, nor unilaterally make
changes in the employees' terms or conditions of employment, without first giving the
representative an opportunity to bargain collectively. Thus the Board has held that an
employer's unilateral announcement of a wage cut the day after an election demonstrated
bad faith. Similarly, a reduction in piece rates without prior consultation with the collec-
tive bargaining representative of the employees was held per se violative of section 8 (a)
(5) (p. 99) 9
The Companies contend that the reductions were announced prior to receipt of the Union's
certification and before any demand for a meeting on the part of the Union, so seemingly,
their action took place in a period when it was under no obligation to recognize and negotiate
with the Union Ordinarily an employer may withhold recognition and refuse to bargain with a
union until it is certified if he in good-faith doubts the union's right to recognition on any
tenable ground. The Board reaffirmed this principle in Tennessee Valley Broadcasting Com-
pany, (83 NLRB 895-897-898) However, in that case the Board held the union's majority was
established as of the date it was designated in an election, where the employer engaged in
dilatory and evasive tactics and unilaterally reduced hours of certain employees in order to
avoid its statutory obligation and that the unlawful refusal to bargain took place as of the date
of the election rather than on and after the date of the union's certification. In the present
case Jordan acted as observer at the election, signed the tally of ballots, and did not file any
objections to the conduct thereof. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that he enter-
tained any good-faith doubt concerning the Union's right to represent the employees on Sep-
tember 26, when he unilaterally announced the wage reductions. Accordingly, the undersigned
finds that on and aftef September 19, the Union was the duly designated representative of all
the employees in the above-described appropriate unit and by unilaterally cutting the wages
of these employees, the Companies thereby refused to bargain collectively in violation of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
The Companies further argue that the wage cut was prompted by economic conditions and
in support of their position submitted profit-and-loss statements and reports filed with the
Interstate Commerce Commission, which disclose operating losses during July and August
and for the calendar year 1952, respectively Neither the General Counsel nor the Union
challenged the accuracy of these records and the undersigned accepts them for the purpose
for which they were offered and received in evidence. But assuming economic reasons for pay
reductions may have existed, such circumstances did not relieve the Companies of their
statutory duty to recognize and deal with the Union as the exclusive representative of their
employees in the unit in respect to any changes concerning hours, wages, or conditions of em-
ployment Consequently, economic considerations did not lustifiy the means adopted in effec-
tuating wage reductions. This does not mean that the Companies were foreclosed from making
cuts, even unilaterally, as might be demanded by their economic plight, for the Board has
stated that an employer is free to put into effect unilaterally conditions of employment when
an impasse has been reached in good-faith bargaining (City Packing Company, 98 NLRB 1261,
1268-269 See also Administrative Ruling of the General Counsel, Case No. 62, 27 LRRM
1443) Since the Companies, through Jordan, chose to pursue a course of action in complete
derogation of their obligation under the Act, they cannot now complain that business conditions
justify their unlawful conduct Moreover, there is far less merit or equity in the Companies'
position than appears on the sruface First, as early as March, Jordan stated the Companies
would not even consider the Union's proposed pay demands because of the money involved but
despite the fact that they thereafter continuously operated at a loss (except in May and June)
they did nothing in regard to wages until shortly after the Union won the election At that time
the Companies not only bypassed the Union but waited until November 25, as credibly testi-
fied by Tipton, before they presented their records The statements and offer coming, as they
9Citing Standard Generator Company of Missouri, 90 NLRB 790, 791; Atlanta Metallic
Casket Company, 91 NLRB 1225, 1233, and The Stilley Plywood Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 932,
933. See also Spitzer Motor Sales Inc., 102 NLRB 437.
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did, approximately 2 months after the cuts had been announced , and after 3 meetings between
the parties , and while the strike was in progress , lose the significance or importance that
might otherwise be attached to them Finally, during the very period when the Companies
were complaining of their heavy losses, Jordan admitted he purchased 4 new busses, which
Foreman Wyrick valued at $30 , 000 apiece , and madepayments of $20,000 and $40,000 on this
equipment in August and December, respectively. It is difficult to believe that the Companies
would have assumed such a large indebtedness , and make substantial payments thereon, if
their financial condition was as precarious as represented to the employees and the Union.
The undersigned so concludes and finds
The record is clear , and the undersigned finds, that wages constituted the principal issue
between the parties The companies , as appears above, established the wage rate at 3 cents
per mile and steadfastly refused to alter their position during the first 3 meetings with the
Union and also refused the Union's request, as reliably stated by Tipton , to use 4 cents per
mile as the basic rate in the wage discussions.
The undersigned further finds that at the meeting of November 25, the Union reduced its
wage demand from 6 to 5 cents per mile , which was rejected by the Companies . Again, on
December 8, the Union proposed a rate of 41 cents per mile , which was likewise rejected.
However , on this occasion the Companies proposed a minimum daily rate of $ 7 50, based on
3 cents per mile , with a rearrangement of schedules which would result in higher take-home
pay for some men and loss of regular runs to other drivers The Companies also offered to
restore the pay cut the following May. These terms were declined by the Union. "I
It is undisputed , and found , that on January 31, 1953, Jordan sent letters to each of the
striking employees advising them that limited operations would be resumed and inquired if
they were willing to return to workunder the same conditions existing at the time of the strike.
At that time the Union was the exclusive representative of the Companies' employees and by
soliciting the strikers individually to return to work thereby acted in derogation of their duty
to bargain with it on behalf of the employees in violation of the Act. m The necessary effect of
such individual solicitation is to undermine the Union ' s authority to act as the exclusive
representative of the employees and constitutes an interference with their right to engage in
collective bargaining in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (Atlanta Metallic Casket
Company, supra, p. 1227, Spitzer Motor Sales, Inc , supra.)
After the resumption of operations Jordan, about February 10, held a meeting with a group
of employees at which he told them, "thebargaining is over," but stated he would like to have
them come back at 3 cents per mile with the possibility of restoring the cut about May 1
Since this meeting was requested by Long , a member of the union committee , the undersigned
finds in granting this request the Companies did not engage in any unfair labor practice. How-
ever , the undersigned finds thatJordan made the foregoing remark, which plainly demonstrates
he had no intention of negotiating with the Union.
The parties met again on March 26, at which time the Union insisted upon 5 cents per mile
and the Companies maintained their original position, except that they withdrew the previous
offer to restore the pay cut in May, and instead proposed that any agreement provide the
Union could , at any time request reopeningofthe wage provisions The undersigned is not im-
pressed with the alternative proposal for it amounted to no more than the recognition of a
bare right which, unde' the circumstances , was meaningless insofar as future wage negotiations
were concerned . The parties failed to reach any accord and no further meetings were held.
While the Act does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of
a concession, the inability of the parties to agree upon wages cannot be said to have resulted
after good-faith negotiations, but is attributable to the course of conduct pursued by the Com-
panies, as found above , both before and during the so- called negotiations The undersigned
therefore, finds that the Companies on and after September 26, 1952, refused to bargain
collectively in violation of Section 8 (a) (5).
Having found that the Companies reduced the rates of pay of their employees in the bar-
gaining unit, the undersigned further finds that they discriminated against such employees
10 McRae admitted he advised Long the strikers should accept the best offer of the Com-
panies and return to work, otherwise they would be replaced In so doing McRae said he was
acting on his own behalf, since the strike had affected his operations to a certain extent. In
view of McRae's presence at previous meetings, at Jordan's invitation, there may be some
question as to whether the strikers understood McRae was acting in this respect, or as a
representative of the Companies However, the undersigned does not rely upon this evidence
in finding the Companies solicited individual strikes to return to work.
JORDAN BUS COMPANY 731
with respect to their terms and conditions of employment and thereby discouraged member-
ship in the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Having found that the Companies refused to bargain with the Union on and after September
26, the undersigned further finds that the strike of November 10, was caused and prolonged by
the unfair labor practices committed by them.
The undersigned finds no evidence to support the allegation in the complaint that the Com-
panies refused to bargain collectively with the Union in June 1952.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with their operations
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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act
Having found that the Respondents refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of their employees in an appropriate unit, it will be recommended that
the Respondents upon request bargain collectively with the Union.
Having found that the Respondents on October 1, 1952, discriminatorily reduced the rates of
pry of their employees in the bargaining unit, it will be recommended that these employees
be made whole for the loss of pay they have suffered by reason of such reduction.ii
It has been found that the strike, which began on November 10, 1952, and was still in
progress at the date of the hearing, was caused and prolonged by the Respondents' unfair labor
practices. The strikers, who have not been reinstated, therefore, are entitled to reinstatement,
upon application, irrespective of whether or not their positions have been filled by the Respond-
ents, and to be made whole for any loss of pay they have suffered or may suffer because of the
Respondents' refusal, if any, to reinstate them.12 Accordingly, in order to restore the status
quo as it existed prior to the time the Respondents engaged in the unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that the Respondents shall, upon application, offer reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, 13 without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges, to all their employees who went on strike on November 10, 1952, or,
thereafter dismissing, if necessary, any person hired on or after that date. It will be also
recommended that the Respondents make whole these employees for any loss of pay they have
suffered or may suffer by reason of the Respondents' refusal, if any, to reinstate them by pay-
ment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages for the period, five (5) days after the date of his application for reinstatement to the
date of the Respondents' offer of reinstatement to him Loss of pay shall be computed on the
basis of separate calendar quarters, less his net earnings, if any, during that period.14
Because the variety of the unfair practices engaged in by the Respondents evinces an atti-
tude in general opposition to the purposes of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respond-
ents cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The operations of Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines, Inc , occur in commerce,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
"Spitzer Motor Sales, Inc , supra
12 City Packing Company, 98 NLRB 1261.
13 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 NLRB
827.
14F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, Local 1480, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3. All bus operators employed by Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines, Inc., at their
Hugo, Oklahoma, terminal, including regular relief drivers, but excluding maintenance em-
ployees, office and clerical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. On September 19, 1952, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America, Local 1480, AFL, was, and at all times since has been, and now
is, the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the above-described unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on September 26, 1952, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
with Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, Local 1480, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all their employees in the
appropriate unit, and by unilaterally reducing the rates of pay of their employees; the Re-
spondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By reducing the pay rates of their employees in order to discourage membership of
their employees in Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach
Employees of America, Local 1480, AFL, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
7. The strike of November 10, 1952, was caused and prolonged by the unfair labor practices
of the Respondents.
8. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are now en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act.
10. The Respondents did not unlawfully refuse to bargain collectively with Amalgamated
Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Local 1480,
AFL, in March and June 1952.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 631, A. F. of L. and CULI-
NARY WORKERS UNION LOCAL 294, HOTEL AND RESTAU-
RANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS ALLIANCE, AFL,
Petitioners . Cases Nos . 19-RC- 1313 and 19 -RC-1319. Jan-
uary 11, 1954
AMENDED DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions filed in Cases Nos. 10-RC-1313 and
19-RC-13191 by the Retail Clerks and the Culinary Workers,
respectively, the Board, on July 22, 1953, directed separate
elections among the employees at the Employer' s store in
Yakima, Washington.' In Case No. 19-RC-1313, an election was
directed among all store employees, including the office super-
1 These cases were consolidated for the purpose of hearing and decision.
2 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
107 NLRB No. 150.