L. Ronney & Sons Furniture Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 891 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO. 891
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent refused to bar-
gain with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1)
of the Act.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's motion for reconsideration
be, and it hereby is, denied in all other respects.
MEMBERS MURDocK and STYLES took no part in the consideration
of the above Order Amending Decision and Order.
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO., A CO-PARTNER-
SHIP CONSISTING OF LEWIS RONNEY, LILLIAN RONNEY , SAM RONNEY,
AND MILTON RONNEY and SUSIE CLINTON, LEWIS HARRISON, FLOR-
ENCE JOHNSON, HELEN MONTGOMERY, ZULA PIPKIN, MIKE SENDEJAS,
LUCILLE SIMS, AND HAROLD J. SUSHAN and FURNITURE WORKERS
UNION, LOCAL No. 3161 OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
& JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. Case No.
21-CA-403. December 09, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Amendment of Order'
On March 30, 1951, the Board issued its Decision and Order 1 in the
above-entitled matter, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and ordering that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth therein. On its own motion, the Board has reconsidered its de-
cision in this proceeding, and hereby modifies and amends its Decision
and Order in the following respects :
1. In its Decision, the Board affirmed the Trial Examiner's conclu-
sion that the Respondent discriminatorily refused to rehire its former
employees because of their membership in Local 576. The Board
found, inter alia, that the Respondent thus discriminated against
Harold J. Sushan, one of the charging parties in this case. The rec-
ord, however, discloses that in January 1949 the Respondent called
Sushan back to the plant and offered to put him back to work, though
at a reduced rate of pay, corresponding to the rates which the Re-
spondent was then paying its employees. Sushan, who had learned of
another employment opportunity, did not give an immediate answer,
but requested a few days to think it over. When he returned a few
days later, the Respondent informed him that his job had already been
filled.
a 93 NLRB 1049.
97 NLRB No. 123.
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is thus clear that the Respondent did not refuse to rehire Sushan,
but in fact offered him reemployment, which he did not elect imme-
diately to accept. This offer of reemployment was made at the time
when the Respondent was restaffing its plant after the November 1948
shutdown, and occurred before the representation and union-authori-
zation elections pursuant to which the Respondent and Local 3161
entered into a closed-shop contract.2 As it appears that, unlike the
later offers of reemployment hereinafter discussed, the offer to Sushan
thus entailed no requirement of membership in Local 3161, we find that
this offer of reemployment was a valid one, and that the Respondent
did not discriminate against him. We shall therefore dismiss the
complaint insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated by
failing to offer reemployment to Harold J. Sushan.
2. At the hearing, Susie Clinton, also one of the charging parties,
credibly testified that she received a letter from the Respondent on
August 22, 1949, requesting her to return to work. She did not re-
spond to the letter because she was then working at another job.
Although this job was at less pay than she had earned at the Respond-
ent's plant, she then preferred it and said that she was "happy where
I was." However, she was laid off from the job in November 1949,
and testified at the hearing that she wanted to go back to work for the
Respondent.
Although the Respondent's offer of reemployment to Clinton in
August 1949 was not an unconditional one, but was subject to the
union-security provisions of its April 5, 1949, contract with Local
3161, Clinton did not assert this as a reason for not wishing to return.
Instead, her testimony discloses that there were other reasons, un-
related to the conditional nature of the Respondent's offer, that moti-
vated her election at that time not to accept the Respondent's offer
of reemployment. It thus appears that she would not have accepted
the Respondent's offer, even had it been unconditional. In these
circumstances, we shall not direct that Clinton be reinstated, and
shall order only that she be made whole for loss of pay from the date
of the Respondent's discrimination against, her to the date of the
Respondent's August 1949, offer of reinstatement.3
3. Lewis Harrison likewise received a letter from the Respondent on
August 22,1949, requesting him to return to work. A day or two later,
lie went to the plant and talked with Sam Ronney, who offered to put
him back on his regular job. As Ronney could not assure him that the
job would provide sufficiently steady employment, Harrison was un-
willing to quit a course of "G. I." training in which he was then en-
gaged, and refused the reemployment offer. Thus Harrison, like Clin-
ton, was offered reinstatement by the Respondent, but refused it for
2 See footnote 5 of'the Board ' s Decision and Order , supra.
3 Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Company, 16 NLRB 727, 811.
L. RONNEY & SONS FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO . 893
reasons clearly unrelated to the conditional nature of the offer. We
shall not direct that he be reinstated, and shall award back pay to him
only to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement 4
4. Mike Sendejas received a letter from the Respondent on Novem-
ber 5, 1949, offering him reinstatement. He was then employed at an-
other furniture factory, and did not respond to the offer. At the hear-
ing, he asserted, as among the reasons for not having accepted the
Respondent's offer, that the Ronney plant was then under contract with
the AFL. He indicated that if the offer had been made before he pro-
cured his present job, he would have returned to the Respondent's
plant. But he also said that he thought he would not have "much of
a chance" at the Romney plant because he had filed a charge with the
Board. In view of Sendejas' express awareness of the conditional na-
ture of the Respondent's reinstatement offer (i. e., that the plant, as he
testified, was "under the A. F. of L." at the time the offer was made),
we do not believe it to be clearly established that he would have rejected
the offer in any event and regardless of the requirement of membership
in Local 3161. In these circumstances, we shall not modify but shall
reaffirm our decision as to Sendejas, finding that the Respondent dis-
criminated against him by refusing to rehire him, and that the Re-
spondent failed to make him an adequate or valid offer of reemploy-
ment, and directing that he be offered reinstatement and made whole
for any loss of pay from the date of the discrimination against him to
the date of a valid offer of reinstatement.
5. In its decision, the Board also affirmed, the Trial Examiner's con-
clusion that the Respondent assisted Local 3161 in violation of Section
8 (a) (2), including, among the grounds for such finding, that the
Respondent prepared and submitted a list of its employees with up-to-
date addresses for the known purpose of aiding Local 3161 to solicit the
employees to abandon Local 576 and to join the AFL.
We have reexamined the record as it relates to this finding, and have
noted that in August or September 1948, when the list of employees was
transmitted by the Respondent's labor relations consultant to the Coun-
cil's business representative, and when the Respondent's employees
were circularized by letter from the Council seeking their allegiance to
the AFL, Local 3161 was not engaged in soliciting membership among
these employees, Local 2488 was being, or had been, organized to seek
membership among the employees of certain firms whose employees
had been represented by Local 576 of the CIO. However, the Coun-
cil's letter, used to solicit the Respondent's employees, purported to so-
licit membership not in a local but in the Council itself, and the appli-
cation card which accompaniedthe letter was likewise for membership
in the Council. Local 3161 was then affiliated with the Council, as
4 F,agie-Pzcher Mining & Smelting Company, supra.
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shown by the Council's letterhead under which this letter was circu-
lated. And Local 3161 eventually became the successor of Local 2488,
receiving Local 2488's members by transfer upon the latter's dissolu-
tion. In these circumstances, we reaffirm our finding that by preparing
and submitting a list of its employees, the Respondent unlawfully
assisted Local 3161.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Board's Order in this case be, and it
hereby is, amended by striking therefrom subparagraph (a) of para-
graph numbered 2, and substituting in lieu thereof the following :
(a) Offer to Florence Johnson, Helen Montgomery, Zula Pip-
kin, Mike Sendejas, and Lucille Sims immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges; make them whole in the manner set forth in the section
entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
them; and make Susie Clinton and Lewis Harrison whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against them, in each case for the period from
the date of such discrimination to the date of the Respondent's
offer of reemployment as set forth in this Supplemental Decision.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the notice required to be posted
by the Respondent, attached as Appendix A to the Board's original
Decision and Order in this case, be, and it hereby is, amended by strik-
ing the third paragraph from such notice and substituting in lieu
thereof the following :
WE WILL OFFER to the following named employees immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority' or other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed: Florence Johnson, Helen Mont-
gomery, Zula Pipkin, Mike Sendejas, and Lucille Sims. We will
make whole the foregoing employees, Susie Clinton, and Lewis
Harrison for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that when the Respondent
resumed operations, on or about January and February 1949, it failed
and refused to reemploy Harold J. Sushan, in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
MEMBERS MURDOCK and STYLES took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Amendment of Order.