Moloney Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1208 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentative of but one employee and has followed the policy of not
directing elections in one-man units.2 We see no reason to modify this
policy where we have before us a petition for an expedited election
under Sections 8(b) (7) (C) and 9(c). Section 8(b) (7) (C) contem-
plates a situation where the picketing labor organization is an expe-
dited election can establish its majority status in the unit of employees
affected by the picketing and be certified for such unit. As the
picketing union cannot, under Board policy, be certified, because the
unit involved is inappropriate, no election can be held and the pe-
tition in such circumstances cannot serve to block the further proc-
essing of the charges of 8 (b) (7) violation. We express no opinion,
of course, as to whether the picketing involved in such charges is
violative of 8(b) (7). Accordingly, as we do not direct an election in
the one-man unit involved herein, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER KIMBALL took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order.
2 Luckenbach Steamship Company, Ino., at at., 2 NLRB 181, 193.
Moloney Electric Company and Local 2, International Union of
Operating Engineers. Case No. 14-CA-2363. January 9,1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 20,1960, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.
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, Moloney Elec-
tric Company, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
129 NLRB No. 149.
MOLONEY ELECTRIC COMPANY 1209
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 2, International
Union of Operating Engineers, as the exclusive representative of all
its employees in the certified appropriate unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, 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 such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 2, International
Union of Operating Engineers as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the certified appropriate unit, and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
1 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 an Order."
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 Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL bargain upon request with Local 2, International
Union of Operating Engineers, as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the certified bargaining unit described below with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached. The bargaining unit is:
All licensed operating engineers at our St. Louis, Missouri,
plant, excluding all other employees, professional employees,
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
Local 2, International Union of Operating Engineers, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining 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 affected by an agree-
ment 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.
MOLONEY ELECTRIC COMPANY,
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FINDINGS
Admitting its refusal to bargain, the Company here would test the Board's pro-
cedure and its certification of the Charging Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all of the employees in the unit. The facts of certifica-
tion and refusal to bargain are admitted; denied are the appropriateness of the unit
as found by the Board in its Decision and Direction of Election (that unit is de-
scribed infra), and the legality of the certification. A hearing was held before me
at St. Louis, Missouri, on September 19, 1960.
It was admitted and I find that the Company, a Delaware corporation with prin-
cipal office in St. Louis, Missouri, manufactures electric transformers. During the
last preceding year it shipped directly from the said place of business to points out-
side the State of Missouri, products valued at more than $50,000. It is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act. It was also admitted and I find that the
Charging Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
On August 12, 1960, the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region certified
the Charging Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the Company's
employees pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election of July 8.
1960, in Case No. 14-RC-3794 (not published in NLRB volumes). That Union
thereupon requested the Company to bargain with it, but the Company, on August 16,
R. L. ZIEGLER , INC. 1211
1960, admittedly refused to bargain with the Union . The Company contends, how-
ever, that its admitted refusal to bargain was not an unfair labor practice, on the
ground that the certification of the Union was illegal . The Company ' s position that
the certification of the Union was illegal is based on the contention that the Board's
procedures and actions in the representation case were improper . That contention,
and the arguments in support thereof, were fully considered in the representation
proceeding , and were rejected at that time ; at the instant hearing no matters were
offered for consideration which were not or could not have been presented in the
representation proceeding.
This is not a matter of coshering the Board : it is neither my function nor my
right to review its determinations . Accepting the certification , and the refusal being
admitted , I find that at all times since August 16, 1960, the Company has in viola-
tion of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 73 Stat. 519 , refused to bar-
gain with the Charging Union as the collective -bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 2, International Union of Operating Engineers, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. All of the Company's licensed operating engineers at its St. Louis, Missouri,
plant, excluding all other employees, professional employees, office clerical em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors. as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
3. Local 2, International Union of Operating Engineers, was, on August 16, 1960,
and at all times since has been, the exclusive bargaining representative within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with Local 2, International Union of
Operating Engineers, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit, Moloney Electric Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. By such refusal to bargain, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
6. 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 ]
R. L. Ziegler , Inc. and Frances Burt , Myrtie Bell Dockery,
Charles H. Farley, Manley Foster Holloway , Willis B. Ingram,
Elsie McCracken , Margaret S. Parker, Huey C. Smalley,
Charles Burroughs, Tommie D. Miller, Eual Kimbrell, and
Joseph Mallisham . Cases Nos. 10-CA-437,0-1, 10-CA-4372-2,
10-CA-472-3, 10-CA-4372-4, 10-CA-4372-5, 10-CA-4372-6, 10-
CA-4370-7, 10-CA-4372-8, 10-CA-4372-9, 10-CA-437,0-10. 10-
CA-4372-11, and 10-CA-4372-12. January 9, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 20,1960, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in
129 NLRB No. 150.