Master Appliance Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 1009 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

MASTER APPLIANCE CORPORATION, ETC 1009
Master Appliance Corporation and Allover Clipper Products Co.
and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Union Local No. 43,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Case No 30-CA-233
May 20, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 19, 1966, Trial Examiner Eugene E Dixon issued his
Decision in the aboi e-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
with a suppoiting brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed
The rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions and briefs, and
the entice record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' con-
clusions,' and iecommendations 3 of the Trial Examiners,4 as modi-
fied below
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the Respondent, Master Appliance Corporation and Allover Clipper
Products Co, Racine, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating employees as to their membership in,
views about, or activities on behalf of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, and
I The Trial Examiner made Inconsistent findings concerning the avc'rage amount of
overtime hours worked by certain male employees herein According to a stipulation by
the partieq male employees had averaged 10 to 20 hours per week of overtime during
weeks antedating May 27, 1985
9 Respondent excepts to the failure of the Trial Examiner to explicitly rule on its
motion to dismiss the complaint made during the hearipg We hereby deny Respondent's
motion although the Trial Examiner has already denied it by adj udicating the case on its
merits and issuing his Decision
' Because of certain inadvertences committed by the Trial 17xamiger in drafting his
Recommended Order and Notice, we have revised them as appears hereinafter
4 Section V, "The Remedy " of the Trial Exanljper 's Decision is hereby amended by
adding the following sentence to the first paragraph thereof Backpay with interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be computed in the manner set forth in F W Wool
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 and 1818 Plumbing c6 Heating Co 138 NL RB 716
158 NLRB No 96
221-731-67-vol 15'8-65
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
Helpers Union Local No. 43,' International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any
other labor organization.
.' (b) Threatening employees with loss of overtime if they support
or assist any labor organization.
(c) Threatening employees with loss of their jobs by reason of
the sale or closing of the plant should the employees support or
assist any labor organization.
(d) Discouraging membership in Teamsters, Chauffeurs, and Help-
ers Union Local No. 43, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other
labor organization, by discriminatorily eliminating overtime work
or transferring work to another company, or in any other manner
discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or other terms or conditions of employment.
'(e) Refusing to bargain collectively with the aforesaid Union as
the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terns and conditions of employment by unilaterally changing terms
and conditions of employment without bargaining with the Union.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
2. -Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the purposes
of the Act :
'(ti) Make the employees whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them,
in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion'entitled "The Remedy," as amended herein:
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
MASTER APPLIANCE CORPORATION, ETC 1011
(d) Post at its plant in Racine, Wisconsin, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix " 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director of Region 30, shall, after being duly signed
by an authorized representative of the Company, be posted by the
Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places , includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, of covered by any other material
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith
5In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a Lnited States Court of
Appeals these shall be substituted for the words a Decision and Order " the words a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals h nforcing an Order
APPENDIX
NOTICE 10 ALL EMPIOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that
Wr Will NOT di scour age membership in Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, and Helpers Union Local No 43, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily
eliminating overtime work or transferring work to another com-
pany, or in any other manner discriminating against our employ-
ees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment of other
terms or conditions of employment
WE wir L NOT coercively interrogate you about your member-
ship, views on, or conduct on behalf of the above-named Union,
or any other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you m ith loss of overtime if you sup-
port or assist any labor union
WE WILL NOi threaten you with loss of your jobs by reason
of the sale or closing of the plant should you support or assist
any labor union
WE WIT L NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the abol e-
named Union as the exclusive representative of our employees
in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment,
by unilaterally changing any term or condition of your employ-
ment without bargaining with the Union
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT In any other manner, interfere with, restrain,
or coerce you in the exercise of your rights guaranteed to you
in Section 7 of Aot, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor orga-
nization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8(s) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appro-
priate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in
a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All machine operators, shipping and receiving, tool and die,
maintenance repair, and production employees of the Master
Appliance Corporation and Allover Clipper Products Co;
but excluding office workers, plant guards, and supervisors,
as defined in the Act.
WE WILL make whole our employees for any loss of pay they
may have suffered because of our discrimination against them.
All of our employees are free to become, remain or refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the aforesaid Union or any other
labor organization.
MASTER APPLIANCE CORPORATION AND ALLOVER
CLIPPER PRODUCTS CO.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(RepvnentaUve ) (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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the
Board's Regional Office, Room 230, 744 North Fourth Street, Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, Telephone No. 272-8600, Extension 3866.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This pr seeding , brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat, 136), herein called the Act, was heard before Trial
Examiner Eugene E . Dixon at Racine, Wisconsin , on September 29 and 30, 1965.
The complaint dated July 20, 1965, was based upon charges filed June 9 and 23
and July 16, 1965, and was issued by the Regional Director for Region 30 (Mil-
MASTER APPLIANCE COItPORATION, ETC. 1013
waukee, Wisconsin ) on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (hereiri called the General Counsel and the Board ). It alleged that
Respondent had engaged in and wag engaging in unfair labor practices by various
specified conduct including its failure to bargain in good faith with Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , and Helpers Union Local No. 43, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called the
Union), as the certified bargaining agent of its employees in an appropriate unit
and by discriminatorily eliminating overtime work and transferring work to another
employer thus violating Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. In its duly
filed answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS
At all times material herein Respondent has been a Wisconsin corporation
maintaining a plant in Racine; Wisconsin, where it has been engaged in the manu-
facture of electrical appliances . During the calendar year preceding the issuance
of the complaint Respondent sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000
to points outside the State of Wisconsin . At all times material herein Respondent
has been an "employer" as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, and engaged in "com-
merce" and in operations "affecting commerce" as defined in Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Union Local No. 43, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America at all times
material herein has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In the fall of 1964 Master Appliance Corporation acquired the Allover Clipper
Products Co. by purchase. As a result of this acquisition Master Appliance added
4 or 5 people employed by Allover to its then complement of 10 or 11 Master
Appliance employees making a total complement of about 17 employees for the
combined operation. Allover carried with it to Master Appliance the products and
accounts it had at the time of its takeover and the employees it transferred to Mas-
ter Appliance apparently continued to perform substantially the same function they
had performed under Allover.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The uhdenied and credited testimony shows that on April 28, 1965, Leonard
Grimmer, business agent and organizer for the Union met with 12 of Master
Appliance's complement of Respondent's employees at the home of employee
Gerald Snell for the purpose of organizing Respondent's employees. The next
day, Snell was called into the office where he was confronted by Respondent's
President and General Manager Henry Meltzer, Office Manager Dolores Hooger-
huis and Assistant General Manager Alfred Krenzke.i Meltzer informed Snell that
he had learned that the employees had had a union meeting the day before and
wanted to know why. When told by Snell of employee dissatisfaction Meltzer
stated that he "didn't know of any trouble, and he didn't think the employees
could benefit from the Union."
Immediately thereafter, the Master Appliance complement of employees were
called together at the instigation of someone on the management side 2 for a meet-
ing in the plant with Hoogerhuis and Krenzke. Hoogerhuis did most of the talking
on this occasion. She told the employees that Respondent "wanted to know what
the trouble was, why the Union was brought into the picture." She said that
Meltzer ". . would rather lose the plant than bargain with the Union. He was
always against a union, all his life." She pointed out that Meltzer "was too old to
i Krenzke had been the former owner of Allover who, on selling his company to Master
Appliance, had become assistant general manager of the new company
2 Snell's testimony was that the meeting was held at the suggestion of "the office."
, 1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cope with the Union ," that he had two alternatives-"he could either retire or sell
the business" and that if he did so ",thirty-nine employees would be out of a job." 3
Several of the employees spoke up in this meeting about their grievances. One
.spoke on behalf of herself and another employee about failure to get any action
on promised wage increases . Hoogerhuis said that "there would be no raises and
seeing that (the employees ) wanted a union in there, that 's for such Mr. Meltzer
wouldn 't give (the employees ) a raise." Snell complained about the amount of
overtime he had been working and indicated , that he would like to be able to
spend more time with his family .4 Hoogerhuis stated that "if (the employees) got
the Union in, there would be no overtime " and pointed out that "all of the em-
ployees would lose,- especially the men ,5 when the overtime would be cut." ,
According to the credited testimony of employee Alice Crilley, that evening
Hoogerhuis telephoned Crilley with . whom she was on friendly terms. Hoogerhuis
told Crilley that she felt badly for Meltzer because of "his age and everything" and
indicated that he had thought the employees and Respondent had been getting
along very well . She also told Crilley that the male employees would stand to lose
more than the female employees because "they were working overtime and they
were making -good money in overtime , and if the Union was in, there would be
no overtime."
Employee Marcia Hoffman testified credibly that on May 12 or 13 , 1965, Hoog-
erhuis, who lived in the same apartment building that Hoffman lived in, went to
Hoffman 's apartment to return an onion she had borrowed . As to what was said
on this occasion Hoffman testified as follows:
... She was very upset with what was going on at the shop and she couldn't
understand what we wanted a union for , that we had only been hurting our-
selves, and she stressed that Jerry Snell would be losing a lot, especially with
his large family, because there would be no overtime . And that Mr. Sauer
wouldn't be losing as much because he was single . And she had said that she
couldn't understand why we wanted the Union... .
On May 25 Meltzer stopped at employee Krewal 's work station and asked how
Krewal thought the election would come out. Meltzer also asked Krewal what the
Union could get for the employees that Respondent could not give them . Meltzer
told Krewal that he ought to be concerned about his family. Meltzer stated that
if the Union came in "he could cut or close the shop up or else he could hire more
employees at a lower rate of pay." He further stated that "the men employees
. would lose out on the overtime if the Union came in. And if this continued,
he would sell his business and sit under his apple tree."
On the day before the representation election, according to Krewal 's further
credited testimony , Krenzke called Krewal into his office where he showed Krewal
a magazine article indicating that an employer had a legal right to sell or close
down his business . Krewal answered that the Union had no intention of closing
down Respondent or any other employer . Krenzke then asked why the employees
had chosen the Teamsters . Krewal replied that it was because the Teamsters
bargained for small groups. Krenzke told Krewal that he would lose his overtime
if the Union came in and that he would be the biggest loser.
On May 21, 1965 , Respondent sent a copy of the following letter signed by
Assistant General Manager Krenzke to each of the employees:
A little less than seven years ago , the Master Appliance Corporation was
born . It started out, as a little infant , with only one employee and one
product.
Several employees testified as to what was said at this meeting. Some testified that
Hoogerhuis had said that Meltzer could close or sell the business and that the employees
could be out of jobs. Whether Hoogerhuis' remarks were voiced in the subjunctive mood
or not is immaterial since I would find, particularly in the context of Hoogerhuis' entire
remarks and the record as a whole, that the remarks constituted a threat of reprisal
whether stated in the positive or the subjunctive.
' One other employee, Willie Sauer, also indicated dissatisfaction with the large amount
of overtime he was working, his complaint being insufficient time to see his girl friend.
5 From as far back at least as 1903 to this time, and up to the day the Board con-
ducted a representation election among Respondent's employees (which was on May 27,
1965), Respondent's female employees worked approximately 5 hours per week overtime
and the male employees 10 to 20 hours per week overtime.
MASTER APPLIANCE CORPORATION, ETC 1015
Year by year it has grown , slowly but surely, adding employee after employee
and product by product , until today its payroll in the factory and office is
thirty one full time employees plus several part -time workers
During these years, there have been no layoffs The Company is proud of
this record and its growth and gives much credit to you and all of your
fellow workers for their loyalty and efforts
The going has not always been smooth and there were limes when the
Company dug into its own pocket to meet the payroll or to buy needed items
I am sure you will understand the worry and risk this involved
The Company has always been interested in the welfare of its employees and
believed that, for the most part, they were hippy and satisfied It realizes
that there were "giipes" at times-but what acquaintance of yours do you
know who hasn't kicked about his employer, a fellow worker or something
about his work at times9 This is only human
On your job, you have had a variety of jobs to do, which is much better than
becoming bored with doing the same thing every day You have had con-
siderable freedom in your work and a minimum of supervis'on because the
Company has trust in all of its employees
Have you considered and weighed the fact that you have hid steady work
without any lay offs, as well as the privilege of working overtime regularly 6
to increase you income?
You will soon make a decision by a ballot on whether you want to have a
union This is your right and privilege But the Company does not believe
this would be of any advantage to you We are only a small firm Your
wages and fringe benefits, we believe, are as good or better than the average
or similar small firms The Company is and will continue to do everything it
can afford to for you and still continue to progress for the benefit of all of
us at Master
After considering the above facts, we hope you will agree with management on
what will be for the best interest of all of us by the way YOU vote
Thank you sincerely, Maly, for reading this and giving it serious thought
Conclusions as to the 8 (a) (1) Al'egations
The repeated threats of loss of overtime and loss of jobs by reason of sale or
closing of the plant as reflected in the foregoing evidence are violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act and I so find? I also find that the interrogation of the em-
ployees reearding why they wanted a onion, what the Ui ion could do for them or
how 'he Union would f ire in the elPc on in the eo-lte{t of these thr' ats v a, also
coercive within the meaning of the Act and violated Section 8(a)(1) thereof, Blue
Flash Express, Inc 109 NLRB 591
Discrimination
a Elimination of overtime
Despite all the foregoing threats and coercive conduct directed by Respondent
toward the employees , when the representation election was held at 9 to 9 30 am
on May 27, 1965, the employees voted 12 to 5 in favor of representation by the
Union s The result of the election was immediately made known to Krenzke
Respondent filed no objections to conduct of the election and on June 7, 1965, the
Union was certified as the collective -bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees
At noon on May 27, 1965, less than 3 hours after learning the results of the
election , President Meltzer met for a conference with his top people At this
6 Emphasis in original
7 I make no finding as to whether or not Respondent's letter of M ly 21 to the employees
was also coeicive and illegal as alleged by the General Counsel since the Recommended
Order herein would not be affected in any case
8 The bargaining unit which I find to be an appropriate unit was comprised of all
machine operators shipping and receiving tool and die maintenance repair and produc
tion employees exclusive of office workers guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conference it was decided to eliminate all overtime work immediately. In accord-
ance with this decision, on the afternoon of May 27 Respondent posted the follow-
ing notice on its bulletin board: ,,
NOTICE
ATTENTION ALL FACTORY EMPLOYEES
By order of management, all overtime work will be discontinued effective
Friday, May 28, 1965 ( including Saturday work) until further notice.
There was no discussion with the, Union regarding this decision to eliminate the
overtime nor was the Union even notified that the action was to take place.
As previously noted, for at least 2 years prior to the elimination of overtime
work, Respondent's female employees had been working an average of 5 hours per
week overtime and the male employees an average of 20 to 30 hours per week
overtime. This overtime, the evidence shows, was given by Respondent in lieu of
wage increases and was Respondent's way of giving the employees greater take-
home pay than they would receive on a straight-time basis.
In his testimony Krenzke gave various reasons for the elimination of the over-
time work. He stated that it was given because (1) of the employees' objection
to working overtime; (2) the imminence of increased wage demands would re-
quire elimination of overtime as an economic necessity; and (3) business condi-
tions did not require that overtime be worked.
In the circumstances here I reject all these reasons as a defense to the charge of
discrimination against Respondent. The limited objections to working overtime
reflected in this evidence can hardly have been interpreted as a ground swell mani-
festation of employee sentiment .9 In any event, if the overtime was eliminated in
order to rectify a grievance of the employees in this regard the inference is still
warranted on the record here that the action was designed to discourage the
employees from seeking or retaining the aid of the Union as bargaining representa-
tive and would thus have been discriminatory within the meaning of the Act.
As for the imminence of a wage increase, there had been up to this time no
union demands whatsoever. And whether or not the business actually necessitated
the working of overtime at this point would seem to be immaterial in view, of Re-
spondent's policy of substituting overtime work for higher wages. In this con-
nection moreover, Krenzke claimed that from the time he first became associated
with Respondent he had continued to point out to Meltzer that the overtime which
was being worked was unnecessary. Only after the Union won the election was
his observation and advice acted upon.1° In sum, I find that the elimination of
overtime here was motivated by Respondent's opposition to the Union and was
intended to discourage union support on the part of the employees. As such,
Respondent's actions violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
b. The transfer of experimental work
Before the election Respondent had been engaged in some experimental work
most of it being conducted after regular shift hours. Several of Respondent's
employees engaged in this work from time to time on an overtime basis as did
two or three full-time employees of Mamco, another company headed by Meltzer
and other of Respondent's officers. The Mamco employees put in extra hours
on the experimental work at Respondent's plant and were paid for this work by
Respondent and not Mamco. From the time of the election much of the experi-
mental work that had been conducted at Respondent's plant was physically trans-
ferred to Mamco.ll At this time the Mamco employees ceased doing any work
9 Indeed, the two complaints voiced were clearly personal and could not have been
interpreted as being made on behalf of other employees.
10 A sidelight on this matter is revealed in a conversation between Krenzke and employee
Krewal right after Krewal learned that overtime had been discontinued. Krewal called
Krenzke on the telephone and told him that he did not see why the employees should be
punished because they joined the Union, adding that they had done nothing but ask
for representation. After the conversation ended Krenzlce went to see Krewal at the
latter's work station. There he told Krewal that he did not like his attitude and that
Krewal should have no complaints because he knew that overtime was going to be out.
Krenzke also stated at this time that 'the Company had not expected the election to go,
the way it did.
II Projects and equipment which had been on Respondent's workbenches as of May 28.
had been removed by June 1.
MASTER APPLIANCE CORPORATION, ETC. 1017
at Respondent's plant and were no longer carried on Respondent's payroll; but
they still continued some of the experimental work at Mamco and continued on
the Mamco payroll. As in the 'case of the elimination of overtime, the Union was
not notified or consulted on this transfer of work to Mamco.
The evidence shows less justification for this action by Respondent than it did
for the elimination of overtime. In that matter Respondent attempted to offer
some rationalization. Here the only explanation offered was that the experimental
work was eliminated because it was done on overtime and the employees had
complained about working overtime. Having found that the elimination of over-
time was discriminatory it follows that the elimination of the experimental work
was also discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and I
so find.
The Refusal to Bargain
The elimination of overtime and the transfer of the experimental work without
notice to or discussion with the Union have been alleged by the General Counsel
to have been in violation of the Respondent's duty to bargain with the Union
under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.I2 I so find. It is clear that unilateral action
involving bargainable matters is a refusal to bargain under Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act where the employees involved are represented by a collective-bargaining
agent. N.L.R.B. v. Benne Katz, et al., 369 U.S. 763. Nor is it material that the
unilateral action takes place prior to the formal issuance of a certification.
Fleming Manufacturing Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 452; Tampa Crown Distributors,
Inc., 121 NLRB 1622.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, above, 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Since at the time of the hearing Respondent had already
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union I shall not rec-
ommend an affirmative bargaining order. I shall, however, recommend that Re-
spondent make whole the employees for the loss of pay, they suffered because of
Respondent's discriminatory elimination of overtime and transfer of work as found
above.
On the basis of the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent as found
herein, the inference is warranted that Respondent maintains an attitude of oppo-
sition to the purposes of the Act with respect to the protection of employee rights
in general. Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
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. Master Appliance Corporation and Allover" Clipper Products Co. at all times
material herein have been employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act.
2. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Union Local No. 43, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America at all
times material herein has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
12 Also alleged as a refusal to bargain (as well as discrimination under Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act) was Respondent's having , sent out some armatures to be rewound . In this
connection the evidence shows that the Union had been consulted about the matter and
had failed to respond to Respondent 's request for advice as to how the Union wished the
matter to be handled . I find no violation of the Act in this matter.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above , Respond-
ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
4. By discriminating against its employees as found above , Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union as the repre-
sentative of all its machine operators , shipping and receiving , tool and die,
maintenance , repair and production employees , in its Racine, Wisconsin, plant
excluding office workers , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Houston Typographical Union No. 87, International Typographi-
cal Union , AFL-CIO [Houston Chronicle Publishing Company]
and Don P. Bosworth
International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO and Don P. Bos-
worth. Cases Nos. 23-CB-620 and t3-CB-645. May 20, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 1, 1966, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modification :
[1. Add the following to paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, and to the last paragraph of the notice ;
[. . . , with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum."]
158 NLRB No. 104.