Maxwell Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 1118 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It is, therefore, recommended that
Respondent offer to Dolores King, Clara Dixon, and Elizabeth Morgan immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , 28 without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges . It is also recommended
that Respondent make whole Dolores King, Clara Dixon, and Elizabeth Morgan for
any loss of pay they may have suffered because of the discrimination against them,
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount each would
have earned as wages from the date of said discrimination on August 5, 1953, July
28, 1953, and July 31, 1953, respectively, to the date of offer of reinstatement, less
their net earnings during such period. Ida Haynes having been offered reinstate-
ment effective August 31, 1953, it will be recommended that she be made whole by
payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she would have earned from
July 31, 1953, to August 31, 1953. Back pay shall be computed in accordance with
the Board 's Woolworth formula 29 on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or
portion thereof during the period from the discharge to the date of proper offer of
reinstatement . Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to
that which each employee would normally have earned for each quarter or portion
thereof, his net earnings ,30 if any, in other employment during that period. Earn-
ings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any
other quarter.
As the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent were of a character strik-
ing at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, and disclose a propensity
on the part of Respondent to continue , although not necessarily by the same means,
to defeat self-organization of its employees , it will also be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the employee 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. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of its em-
ployees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent did not discriminatorily discharge Hannah Bibbins as alleged in
the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
28 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
20r+. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
30 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440
MAXWELL BROTHERS , INC. and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, C. I. O. Case No. 10-CA-1969. March 25, 1955
Decision and Order
On October 29, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
111 NLRB No. 187.
MAXWELL BROTHERS, INC. 1119
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.,-
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
Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following ex-
ceptions, modifications,3 and additions :
1. In agreeing with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Re-
spondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, we
do not rely, as he did, upon any allegations of the complaint, all of
which were denied by the Respondent. We base this finding upon
the stipulated commerce facts in the record in Maxwell Brothers,
Inc.,4 a representation proceeding of which we take official notice, as
did the Trial Examiner. A stipulation in that case shows that the
Florida plant of the Respondent involved in this proceeding annually
ships goods outside the State of Florida valued in excess of $200,000,
and that it receives goods from outside the State valued in excess of
$100,000.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent engaged
in independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.' In so
finding, we rely upon the uncontradicted testimony credited and relied
upon by the Trial Examiner except for (a) employee Newsome's
testimony that Foreman Dail interrogated him concerning the union
organizer's visit to his home, and (b) employee Brown's testimony
1 The Respondent also filed a motion for a new trial , alleging in substance that the Trial
Examiner was biased and prejudiced , and a motion to dismiss the complaint , alleging in
effect that no substantial evidence was adduced to support the allegations of the complaint.
Upon careful analysis of the entire record, we find insufficient basis for finding bias or
prejudice on the part of the Trial Examiner and, as indicated hereinafter , we are satis-
fied that the Trial Examiner 's unfair labor practice findings are supported by substantial
evidence Accordingly, the above-mentioned motions are denied.
2 The Respondent excepts to the ruling of the Trial Examiner refusing to permit the
questioning of complainant George on the matter of whether George was discharged for
cause after his week 's discriminatory layoff. It claims that the Trial Examiner erred in
this regard because the character of George 's work during the period following his layoff
was put in issue by the General Counsel . This contention is without merit, for the record
plainly shows that the testimony elicited by the General Counsel in'this connection per-
tained to the period of George's employment prior to the layoff. We find that the pro-
posed questioning was directed to proof of an immaterial issue and hence properly pre-
cluded by the Trial Examiner.
2 The Trial Examiner found that Foreman Robinson's interrogation of employee W. C.
Johnson took place in April 1954 , whereas the record shows that it occurred in the "early
part of May " We hereby correct this error, which does not affect our findings or con-
clusions in this case
4 Case No 10-RC-2770, wherein the Board , in an unpublished Decision and Direction
of Election issued in August 1954, made a similar finding.
5 As no exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner 's finding with respect to the sur-
veillance by Cecil Hodges, we adopt that finding without necessarily agreeing with the
Trial Examiner ' s rationale
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Foreman Vickers interrogated him as to the number of employees
present at a union meeting. As to (a), Newsome's testimony was
stricken from the record, upon motion by the Respondent, and never
reinstated by the Trial Examiner. In the circumstances, any reliance
upon that testimony is unwarranted.' With respect to (b), it appears
from the record that the interrogation by Foreman Vickers took place
sometime in June, rather than in April 1954, as found by the Trial
Examiner. The record fails to indicate, however, whether this inci-
dent occurred before or after the issuance of the complaint,' which
was not amended at the hearing. Under all the circumstances, includ-
ing the cumulative character of the testimony in question, we shall
not predicate an unfair labor practice finding on Brown's testimony.
3. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that at the time of the
layoffs involved, which are found herein to have been discriminatorily
motivated,' the Respondent was aware of the prior union activity of
each of the discriminatees. In arriving at this finding, the Trial Ex-
aminer makes no mention of the following undisputed testimony in
the record : Employee David Wright's testimony that during the last
week of April 1954 Foreman Robinson told him, "You seen Elry
George with the union cards and signed one," and employee J. Hollis
Bennett's testimony that on April 29 Foreman Dail told him that Fore-
man Vickers had seen him at complainant Norris' house "talking about
the union." As this testimony furnishes additional support to the
Trial Examiner's finding in the cases of George and Norris, we also
rely upon it in the instant connection.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Maxwell Broth-
ers, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of
America, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of its employees,
by discriminatorily laying off, discharging, or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees, or by otherwise discriminating in regard to the
hire, tenure, or' any term or condition of employment of its employees.
6 As appears from the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner' s finding of unlawful
surveillance by Management Representatives Dail and Ellis is nevertheless supported by
substantial evidence
7 The complaint is dated June 14, 1954.
8In this connection we note that complainant Norris had been an employee of the
Respondent for about 18 years prior to his layoff and that there is no evidence of any criti-
cism of him by the Respondent during this period. As for complainants Harris and
George, the record affirmatively shows that there was never any criticism of their work
before their layoff.
MAXWELL BROTHERS, INC. 1121
(b) Engaging in surveillance of employees engaging in union ac-
tivities when not on company time and property; interrogating em-
ployees concerning their union wishes or membership in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) ; and threatening employees with economic reprisals for
engaging in union activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist International Woodwork-
ers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or
all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Randolph Norris, Willie Harris, and Elry George
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them, in the manner set forth in that portion of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all pertinent records necessary to analyze
the amount of back pay due under this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Jasper, Florida, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty
('60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.
'The Respondent's contention that this requirement violates the Federal Constitution
and is not authorized by the Act is plainly without merit. N. L. R. B. v. Express Pablish-
sag Co , 312 U. S 426.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing all Order "
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Wood-
workers of America, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization
of our employees, by discriminating in any manner in regard to
their hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees in regard
to their union activities, nor interrogate them concerning such
activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or co-
ercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), nor threaten them with
reprisals to discourage such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International
Woodworkers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Randolph Norris, Willie Harris, and Elry
George for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coining or remaining members of the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
MAXWELL BROTHERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
MAXWELL BROTHERS , INC. 1123
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, and an answer having been duly filed by the Respondent Company,
a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8
(a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136),
herein called the Act, was held in Jasper, Florida, on September 28, 1954, before a
duly designated Trial Examiner.
In substance the complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent:
(1) In April or May 1954 discriminatorily laid off, to discourage union activity,
and for a period of about 10 days, 3 named employees, Randolph Norris, Willie
Harris,, and Elry George; (2) by its supervisors and other agents (a) interrogated
employees about their union membership and desires, (b) threatened employees
with economic reprisals, and (c) engaged in surveillance of employees' homes and
union meetings; and (3) by such conduct has interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence per-
tinent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Early during the afternoon session of the 1-day hearing, counsel for the Respondent
voluntarily withdrew from the hearing, his withdrawal being accompanied by other
management representatives. His action followed, and apparently was caused by,
the Trial Examiner's ruling which sustained an objection by General Counsel to an
immaterial question. The record fully reveals the question, the objection, the rul-
ing and the reasons therefor, and counsel's withdrawal from the proceeding.
General Counsel waived oral argument and the privilege of filing a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Although the Respondent's answer denies each specific allegation of the complaint,
including that concerning the nature of the Respondent's business, no evidence was
offered to support such denial.
The Respondent is an Illinois corporation with its principal office at Chicago,
Illinois. It maintains a plant at Jasper, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of
making shipping crates from wood and paper. This case is concerned only with
its Jasper operations.
During the year preceding the hearing the Respondent received, from points out-
side the State of Florida, raw materials, equipment, and supplies valued at more than
$100,000 During the same period it sold and shipped finished products valued at
more than $200,000 from its Jasper plant to points outside the State of Florida.
Upon the basis of the uncontradicted factual allegations of the complaint, and the
Board's finding in its Decision and Direction of Election, dated August 20, 1954,
involving the same plant, in Case No. 10-RC-2770, the Trial Examiner concludes
and finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, C. I. 0., is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the Respondent at its Jasper plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and issues
Due in large part to the withdrawal from the hearing of counsel for the Respond-
ent and his failure to plead any affirmative defense in his answer to allegations of
discrimination , the issues in this case , both of fact and law, are few and simple.
In summary , credible and undisputed evidence shows that : (1) The Charging
Union began an organizing campaign at the Respondent 's Jasper plant early in
344056-55-vol 111-72
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
April 1954; (2) three employees were particularly active in soliciting their fellows
to sign union authorization cards: Randolph Norris, Elry George, and Willie Harris;
(3) these three employees were summarily laid off for a period of several days dur-
ing the last of April or early May; (4) before these layoffs foremen drove by em-
ployees' homes while they were being visited by a union representative and employees
were later questioned about such visits; and (5) foremen asked employees if they had
signed union cards and threatened them with economic reprisals if the Union came
into the plant.
The three layoffs are contended by General Counsel to have been discriminatory
and for the purpose of discouraging union activity. The conduct of foremen in
watching the union representatives' moves among the employees, at their homes,
is alleged as surveillance. All such conduct by the Respondent's foremen is claimed
as having interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act.
B. Surveillance and other restraint and coercion
On April 7 Union Organizer James Cochran and employee Willie Harris were
at the home of employee Cleveland Newsome. The cars of both Cochran and Harris
were at the curb of the house set close to the street. During their visit Foreman Dail
and Plant Manager Ellis, at different times, drove slowly by the home and looked in.
Dail drove by twice. The next day Dail asked Harris what his car tag number was.
Harris told him. Half an hour later Dail returned to Harris and asked whose car
had been in front of Newsome's house. Harris declined to tell him. Dail took
from his pocket a piece of paper bearing numbers and informed the employee that
he had the number of someone who had not remained in town-because he had
looked for him-and further warned Harris that he might as well reveal the informa-
tion, otherwise he would have the State Patrol identify the individual. Later Dail
approached Newsome and after similar inquiries this employee told him that a union
organizer had been at his home.
The following day Dail again queried Harris, and the employee again would not
reveal the information sought. Dail then said that he had found out from Newsome.
The foreman asked Harris if he had ever before belonged to a union, and told him
"a union wouldn't be worth while to come in here." Dail warned Harris that he
could "knock you off," running the nailing machines, and employees would not get
their time in. (As noted below, Harris in fact was "knocked off" his job for a
period later that month.)
On April 14, when Harris again visited Newsome, Dail again drove slowly by the
house. Harris called Cochran and advised him to stay out of town.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that credible testimony, undisputed, sus-
tains the allegations of the complaint as to surveillance by Dail and Ellis on April 7
and 14. The questioning of Harris and Newsome by Dail and the nature of the fore-
men's remarks about the organizer and the Union lead to the reasonable infer-
ence that both supervisors were on no innocent errand when driving slowly by and
peering into Newsome's home, but actually were engaged in spying upon the em-
ployee's organizing efforts. The surveillance, and Dail's above-noted warning to
Harris, were in restraint of employees' rights as guaranteed by the Act.'
Foreman Dail engaged in other conduct prohibited by the Act. He told employee
Newsome that if the Union "came in," the practice of transfer to other work when
his machine was idle would be discontinued, and the employee would have to
"clock out." Dail interrogated employee I. Hollis Bennett as to whether his "Daddy"
was going to have anything to do with the Union, said he had heard from another
employee that he was talking about the Union, warned him that if the Union came
in he would make fewer hours of work, asked him if he liked his job and wanted
'There is also in the record undisputed testimony to the effect that Cecil Hodges simi-
larly spied upon the home of employee Bennett at a time when Cochran was visiting him.
General Counsel contends that Hodges is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Indeed the evidence in this case warrants no other conclusion. (As noted below, Hodges
laid off employee Harris, the last of April He bears the title assistant foreman, directs
employees in their work, and transfers them from one job to another ) However, the
Board (by panel of three Members), on August 20, 1954, in its above-cited Direction of
Election, found that Hodges does "not have any supervisory authority," and is not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act-despite the Employer's own contention in that
case that Hodges is a supervisor. The Trial Examiner considers himself bound by the
Board's determination as to Hodges, and therefore makes no finding as to the Respondent's
accountability for his surveillance
MAXWELL BROTHERS , INC. 1125
to keep it, and finally told him to talk to other employees and urge them against
the Union. Dail also interrogated employees Wilmer Langford and Curtis Marlow
about the Union and warned them, in effect, that if it came in the mill would shut
down and its machinery be moved out. Dail accused employee Jeremiah Cumbess
of talking about the Union, told him that if he did not like his job to "hit the clock"
and warned him that if he wanted to keep his job he had better get the Union out
of his mind.
During the same period-April 1954-other supervisors engaged in similar con-
duct. Foreman Robinson asked employees David Wright and W. C. Johnson if they
had signed a union card, and' then told the former he had "better mind" what he
signed. Foreman Vickers likewise interrogated employee Edmund Brown, and also
asked him how many employees had attended a union meeting.
The above-described interrogation as to union adherence and interest, and the
threats of economic reprisal if such adherence continued or the Union "came in,"
clearly constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of employees' rights guaran-
teed by the Act.
C. The layoffs
It has been found above that three employees were particularly active in organiz-
ing at the plant: Norris, George, and Harris. All three were summarily laid off,
on April 30 or May 3, 1954.
Credible evidence supports the finding that the Respondent's management was
well aware of their union activity before the layoffs. Early in April Dail interro-
gated Harris as to his being with the union organizer. In mid-April Foreman Robin-
son asked George about the Union, and later asked employee Johnson if he had signed
one of the cards George had. Foreman Vickers was on the porch of the house next
door at a time when Organizer Cochran was calling at the home of Norris.
Harris and George were laid off without warning or reason given on Friday, April
30, 1954, Harris by Hodges and George by Robinson. Both were told only that
they were being laid off upon "orders." Foreman Robinson laid Norris off on
Monday, May 3, telling the employee only that "there had been too much talk
around here "
Charges were filed with the Board as to these three layoffs on May 5, and were
served upon the Respondent on May 6. All three, it appears, were permitted to re-
turn to work the following Monday, May 10.2
On May 11 Harris was sent to the plant manager's office by Dail, where Ellis asked
him if he had any union cards in his pocket. Ellis also asked him why, if the men
wanted a union, they did not organize one of their own. When the employee ven-
tured the belief that he had been laid off because of his union activity, Ellis did
not deny it, and then asked the employee if he and George had been at a certain
organizing meeting before the layoff
The uncontradicted testimony fully warrants the conclusion, and it is found, that
employees Norris, Harris, and George were discriminatorily laid off to discourage
union membership and activity, and that such discrimination, and Ellis' interrogation
of Harris on May 11, above described, constituted interference, restraint, and coercion
of employees in their exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Norris, Harris, and George, the Trial Examiner will recom-
mend that it make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the discriminatory layoff by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
2 The record is not entirely clear as to the actual date of the return to work of George.
It was agreed during the early part of the hearing that the Respondent would produce
records to establish accurate dates, but its counsel withdrew from the hearing before such
records were brought for« and
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to that which he would normally have earned from the date of the discrimination
to the date of reinstatement , less his net earnings during such period.3
in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed , the commission
by the Respondent of similar and other unfair labor practices may be reasonably
anticipated . The remedy should be coextensive with the threat . It will therefore
be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Woodworkers of America , C. I. 0., is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Randolph
Norris, Willie Harris, and Elry George, thereby discouraging membership in the
above-named labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of. rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
3It will also be recommended that the Respondent furnish the Board or its agent all
records necessary to determine, accurately, the actual period of each discriminatory layoff
as well as the amount of back pay due.
LOCAL 420, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF
THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, AFL, JOHN SMALL, BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE, A. J.
BREEN, BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE , AND A . MCIIENRY, BUSINESS
MANAGER OF SAID LOCAL and CORNELIUS C. O'BRIEN, JR. and J. J.
WHITE, INC., PARTY TO AN AGREEMENT. Case No. 4-CB-216.
March 25,1955
Decision and Order
On November 19, 1954, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel
and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs.
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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
ill NLRB No. 190.