Majestic Weaving Co., Inc., of New York

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1523 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

MAJESTIC WEAVING CO., INC., OF NEW YORK 1523
choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any and all
such activities.
FERRELL-HICKS CHEVROLET, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------ -- - -- -- By-- - - - - --- - - - - -- -- -
------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. -
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Midland
Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago 3, Illinois, Telephone No. Central 6-9660,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Majestic Weaving Co ., Inc., of New York and Textile Workers
Union of America , AFL-CIO and Local 815, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Party to the Contract . Cases Nos. 2-CA-
9370 and 2-CA-9370-2. December 9, 196.E
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On June 29, 1964, the Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had violated
Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) of the Act.' Thereafter separate
motions for reconsideration were filed by the General Counsel, the
Charging Party, the Respondent, and Local 815, the Party to the
Contract. The Board 2 has now carefully considered these motions.
Except with respect to certain aspects of the reimbursement issue the
motions present no matters not fully considered by the Board, and
they are hereby denied. The requests of the Respondent and Local
815 for oral argumet are also denied inasmuch as the issues and the
positions of the parties are adequately and clearly presented.
Concerning reimbursement, the General Counsel and the Charging
Party urges the Board to require the Respondent to reimburse all
employees for fees and dues checked off in favor of, or paid directly
by, the employees to Local 815 pursuant to its union-security con-
tract with the Respondent, a contract obtained with 8(a) (2) assist-
ance as found in the Board's Decision. The record shows, as empha-
sized by the General Counsel, that in June 1963, when the Respond-
ent announced that it would begin to make deductions of dues pur-
suant to the contract, 20 employees signed petitions protesting the
proposed deductions. These petitions are in evidence as General
1147 NLRB 859.
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 Fanning and Jenkins]
149 NLRB No. 135.
1524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8. As to the employees who protested
in this way, it is clear that the deductions were coercive within the
meaning of the Supreme Court's decision in Local 60, United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, et al.
(Mechanical Handling Systems) v.-N.L.R.B.3 Therefore, as to these
employees, we shall order reimbursement of dues and fees collected
from them. However, as found by the Trial Examiner in footnote 12
of his Decision, a Local 815 meeting was held about the same time at
which approximately 20 employees, not identified in the record,
authorized the Local to make their membership retroactive to the
effective date of the said contract, February 14, 1963, in order to make
them eligible for hospitalization and surgical benefits at an earlier
date. So far as this record shows, the action of these employees in
making their membership retroactive was voluntary and not for the
purpose of retaining their employment. We conclude, therefore, that
this action establishes that these employees were not coerced into the
paying of dues and initiation fees.
The record also indicates an increased employee complement in the
ensuing 4 months before hearing, and the signing of additional
authorization cards for Local 815. Whether these employees also
applied for membership voluntarily to secure benefits does not appear.
In the circumstances, we conclude that as to these employees the
General Counsel has not sustained the burden of proving specific coer-
cion in the deduction of union dues and fees within the meaning of
the Supreme Court's Local 60, Carpenters decision .4 Accordingly, we
shall limit our reimbursement order to those employees.. who pro-
tested the deduction of dues and fees by signing General Counsel's
Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8 herein, together with interest computed in the
customary manner.5
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order in our Decision of June 29,
1964, be amended by adding the following paragraph 2(c), with
appropriate relettering of present paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) :
"Reimburse all present and former employees who protested the
deduction of dues and fees by signing petitions to that effect in June
1963 for all sums which they have been unlawfully required to pay
to Local 815, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent
per annum."
8 365 U.S 651.
4 Supra. See also Teamsters and Allied Workers, Hawaii Local 996; and Arthur A.
Rutledge and Harry Kuhia, Jr., its agents ( Twentieth Century -Fox Film Corporation),
134 NLRB 1556, 1562, 1603-1604; compare Lapeer Metal Products Co., 134 NLRB 1518,
1522, where the Board found the coercion "akin" to a dominated union situation.
5 See The Richard W. Kaase Company, 141 NLRB 245, 249.
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. 1525
It is also ordered that Appendix A to our said Decision be amended
by the addition of the following as a third paragraph :
WE WILL reimburse all present and former employees who
protested the deduction of dues and fees by signing petitions to
that effect in June 1963 for all sums which they have been unlaw-
fully required to pay to Local 815, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers. of America,
together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Local 107, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Amer-
ica, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-5901. December 9, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Gordon L. Fine. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of 21 employees engaged in shipping,
receiving, and materials handling at the Employer's Newport, Dela-
ware, Service Center. The Employer contends that the proposed
unit is inappropriate on the ground that the work of the employees
sought is closely integrated with that of the other Service Center
employees. There is no bargaining history for these employees.
The Service Center was established in June 1963 to service the two
Sears retail department stores in the Wilmington, Delaware, area,
which are respectively 31/2 and 71/2 miles from the Service Center.
The Service Center, which represents a new organizational structure
within the Sears operation, centralizes many of the auxiliary serv-
ices connected with retail sales which were formerly carried on at the
stores. In addition to the materials handling department which per-
forms general warehousing functions, the Service Center includes a
149 NLRB No. 142.