Lane Lifeboat & Davit Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 473 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of LANE LIFEBOAT & DAVIT CORPORATION and UNITED
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, DIVISION OF DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. 2-C-4916.-Decided February 7, 1945
Mr. Martin I. Rose, for the Board.
Messrs. Walter J. Krolman and Jere F. Ryan, of Flushing, N. Y.,
and Mr. David Feyer, of New York City, for the respondent.
Messrs. Michael E. Rosenstein and Leon Zwicker, of New York City,
for the Union.
Mr. Edward J. Filardi, of New York City, for the Association.
Mr. Gilbert V. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION '
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by United Construction Workers,
Division of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New'
York City), issued its amended complaint on October 7, 1944,1 against
Lane Lifeboat & Davit Corporation, Flushing, Long Island, New
York, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5), and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the Amended Complaint and of Notice of Hear-
ing thereon were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and
Lane Lifeboat & Davit Employees' Association, herein called the As-
sociation, a labor organization alleged in the Complaint to have been
dominated and supported by the respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint
alleged in substance that the respondent (1) dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association and con-
' The original Complaint was issued March 29, 1944.
60 N. L. R. B., No. 91.
473
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tributed support to it; (2) discriminatorily discharged and 'refused
to reinstate 11 named employees because of their union activity; (3)
on or about September 2:S, 1942, and at all times thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in a certain unit appropriate for the pur=
poses of collective bargaining; and (4) by the foregoing and other
specified acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
iii the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Thereafter, the respondent filed its answer to the amended complaint,-
denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged therein.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New York City on Octo-
ber 24 and 31, 1944, before Melton Boyd, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respond-
ent, the Union, and the Association were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. At the outset of the hearing, the Board's
attorney offered in evidence a settlement stipulation, executed by
himself, the respondent, and the Union, disposing of all allegations
in the amended complaint; subject to the approval of the Board,-and
providing for the immediate entry of a stipulated order by the Board
and of a consent decree by an appropriate United States Circuit Court
of Appeals. The Trial Examiner accepted the stipulation in evidence
over the Association's objection. The attorney for the Board then
rested; whereupon the' respondent, the Union, and the Association
were given an opportunity to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
Both the respondent and the Union elected not to offer additional
evidence. The Association stated that it was not then prepared to
produce its evidence and made a motion for a 2 weeks' continuance
in order to prepare its defense. The Trial Examiner refused to grant
the Association additional time to interview prospective witnesses in
connection with its defense, but gave the Association assurance that
if it'commenced its case, a reasonable opportunity would be given the
Association to produce specific witnesses who were not then present
at the hearing. The Association, however, pressed its original mo-
tion. Upon the denial of said motion, the Association withdrew from
the proceeding without adducing any proof. The hearing was then
closed.
On November 17, 1944, in accordance with Article II, Section 36 (a)
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3,
as amended, the proceeding was transferred to and continued before
the Board for its consideration. On December 19, 1944, the Board
issued an order, returnable on January 10, 1945,2 requiring all parties
to show cause why the afore-mentioned stipulation should not be ac-
2 The order was originally returnable on January 4, 1945, but at the request of the
Association , the return date was extended to January 10, 1945.
LANE LIFEBOAT & DAVIT CORPORATION 475
cepted and approved by the Board and to make a fully particularized
and verified offer of proof as to such additional evidence, if any, which
each party was prepared to adduce in support of its position. All
parties responded to the order. The attorney for the Board and the
Union urged approval of the stipulation; the respondent raised no
objection; the Association objected to the acceptance of the stipula-
tion and made an offer of proof. We have considered the Associa-
tion's objections and offer of proof, which we accept as true, and for
the reasons hereinafter set forth we are of the opinion that they raise
no material issue requiring