Local 559

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 1128 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dopp at that time that her union activities played no part in Respondent 's decision
to discharge her and neither did the fact that she had related to a Board agent the
statements he made in his July 1962 telephone conversation with her.
2. Concluding findings
Upon the entire record in the case, I find that the allegations of the complaint
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (4 ) of the Act by discharging
Dopp on July 26, are not supported by substantial evidence . This finding becomes
inescapable when consideration is given to the fact that the credible evidence clearly
establishes ( 1) a total lack of any antipathy by Respondent to the Union or to any
other labor organization ; (2) a complete lack of union antipathy by Kniff, the per-
son who decided to discharge Dopp; (3) no evidence whatsoever that Kniff knew
that Dopp was or had been a member of any labor organization ; (4) no activity
by the Union or any other labor organization in Respondent 's plant at any time;
(5) Menzies securing a job for Dopp at a friend 's plant within a week after Dopp's
September 1962 Silver Streak layoff ; ( 6) the only union activities by Dopp were
,(a) signing a union-authorization card in July 1962, while employed at Silver Streak,
and (b) attending one union meeting in July or August 1962. Accordingly, it is
recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
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. Tru-Scale Products , Inc., San Dimas , California , is engaged in, and during
all times material was engaged in, commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
.and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and
,( 4) of the Act , have not been sustained.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended, upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and upon the record as a whole, that the complaint be dismissed in its
-entirety.
Local 559, International' Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Anopolsky & Son,
Inc. Cases Nos. 1-CC-368 and 1-CC-370. June 29, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISIONS AND AMENDED ORDER
On December 30, 1963, the Board issued a Decision and Order'
finding that Respondent had engaged in consumer picketing at second-
ary establishments. Relying on Fruit & Vegetable Packers c0 Ware-
.housemen, Local 760 (Tree Fruits), 132 NLRB 1172, 1177, the Board
'concluded that Respondent had thereby violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii)
(B) of the Act. The Board also found that Respondent violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) by engaging in a strike and picketing
with an object of forcing or requiring Anopolsky & Son, Inc., to enter
into an agreement proscribed by Section 8(e). On April 20, 1964,
1145 NLRB 722.
147 NLRB No. 152.
LOVEMAN, JOSEPH AND LOEB , DIV. OF CITY STORES CO. 1129
the Supreme Court rejected the Board's holding in the Tree Fruits
case. (N.L.R.B. v. Fruit d Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen,
Local 760, 377 U.S. 58.)
Upon reconsideration of these cases' in light of the Supreme Court's
aforementioned decision, we find that Respondent did not violate Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. How-
ever, we reaffirm our original finding that Respondent violated Section
8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby orders that the Decision and Order issued
on December 30, 1963, be amended by deleting from the Order therein
paragraph 1(a) and renumbering the subsequent paragraph accord-
ingly and by deleting from the notice the second full indented
paragraph.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
'For the reasons stated in his partial dissent in the original Decision , Member Brown
would not find that Respondent violated Section 8 ( b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act. He
would therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Loveman , Joseph and Loeb, Division of City Stores Company and
Local No. 375, International Ladies Garment Workers' Union,.
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-5542. June 09, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer H. Carlton
Bryan, Jr. The Hearing Officer's rulings are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. Petitioner claims to represent certain employees of the Employer..
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9'
(c) (1) andSection2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1 Petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not admitting into evidence con-
tracts which might indicate an industry practice in regard to the unit sought by Peti-
tioner. In view of our disposition of the petition, we find it unnecessary to rule on
Petitioner's request that the Hearing Officer be overruled and the contracts admitted into.
evidence.
147 NLRB No. 106.