Old King Cole, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 837 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

OLD KING COLE, INC. 837
Old King Cole, Inc. and United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum & Plastic
Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 8-CA-1314. Decem-
ber 14,195'
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 20, 1957, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman 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 a copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean].
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 Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the en-
tire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner l with the following
addition :
In agreement with the Trial Examiner we find that none of the
circumstances relied on by the Respondent as justification for its
refusal to bargain with the Union constitute such "unusual circum-
stances" as would relieve the Respondent of its statutory duty to bar-
gain with the Union as the certified representative of its employees.
Ray Brooks v. N. L. R. B., 348 U. S. 96.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent Old King Cole, Inc.,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all production and maintenance employees employed
at the Respondent 's Louisville , Ohio , plant, excluding office clerical
employees , professional employees, guards , and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
, We have corrected certain inadvertent inaccuracies in the Intermediate Report. These
inaccuracies , however, did not affect the merits of Trial Examiner 's determinations, or
alter our ultimate conclusions.
119 NLRB No. 115.
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit hereinabove
described with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
(b) Post at its Louisville, Ohio, plant copies of the notice attached
to the Intermediate Report Marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the
Respondent, be posted by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1 This notice is amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is en-
forced 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."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended,' commenced by the issuance on June 6, 1957, of a complaint by
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on behalf of the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, against Old King Cole,
Inc., the Respondent herein, alleging in substance that the Respondent, after the
certification of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America,.
AFL-CIO (hereinafter sometimes called the Union), as bargaining representative
for some of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, refused to bargain
in good faith with that representative, in contravention of the provisions of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Prior thereto, on April 17, 1957, the
Union had filed a charge asserting violations of the same provisions of the Act,.
and as a basis of the charge alleged that the Union
- . was duly certified by the Board as the collective bargaining representative
for Employer's production and maintenance employees at its Louisville, Ohio.
plant on or about March 7, 1957, Case No. 8-RC-2674. The Union requested
that the Employer meet with its representatives for the purpose of bargaining
for these employees in respect to grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment. The Employer, by its
officers, agents and representatives, has refused and does now refuse to meet
with, discuss, or bargain with representatives of the Union in any manner in
respect to the aforementioned grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment affecting its employees.
The complaint asserts that:
all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's [Respondent's]
Louisville, Ohio plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees,, guards and supervisors .as defined in the Act
161 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act.
OLD KING COLE, INC. 839
.constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act; such employees by majority vote at a secret
election of the Regional Director on or about June 5, 1956, designated and selected
the Union as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining, and on
March 7, 1957, the Union was so certified; at all times since March 7, 1957, the
Union has been and is now the exclusive bargaining representative of all the em-
ployees in the described unit for purposes of collective bargaining; on or about April
2, 1957, the-Union requested the Respondent to bargain collectively in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
with the Union as exclusive bargaining representative of these employees; and about
April 9, 1957, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused and continues
to refuse to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the described unit.
The Respondent's answer to the complaint effectively denies contraventions of
the Act as alleged in the complaint, and also sets up certain affirmative defenses,
discussed below.
On the issues raised by the complaint and answer and pursuant to notice, a
hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner at Canton, Ohio,
on July 2, 1957. At the hearing, all parties appeared and each was represented
by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, to argue orally upon the record, to
file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to file briefs, was
afforded each party. A motion to dismiss the complaint made on behalf of the
Respondent at the hearing is disposed of by the findings set forth below.
Upon the entire record of the case, from his observation of the witnesses, and
after careful consideration, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Old King Cole, Inc., the Respondent herein, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, annually causes and has continuously caused its products
having a total value in excess of $100,000 to be. sold, transported, and delivered
in interstate commerce, to and through the States of the United States other than
the State of Ohio, from its Louisville, Ohio, plant. The Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN
A. Preliminary findings
Prior and Pending Proceedings
(a) The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and the evidence shows that:
On March 14, 1956, the Union filed a petition for the Board to certify it as bar-
gaining representative for a claimed appropriate unit of employees of the Respon-
dent; thereafter, on May 18, 1956, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election; an election was held on June 5, 1956, under the supervision of the Re-
gional Director, and a tally of ballots was made that day; 2 on June 11, 1956,
the Union filed objections to the conduct of the election to which the Employer
(here Respondent) promptly excepted; on August 17, 1956, the Regional Director
filed a report on objections and challenged ballots, and the Employer .filed timely
exceptions to the report on objections and challenged ballots; the Board on October
4, 1956, issued a Supplemental Decision and Direction in which it ordered the
opening and counting of 5 challenged ballots and the preparation of a revised tally
of ballots; 3 on October 10, 1956, a revised tally of ballots was made; 4 on October
23, 1956, the Regional Director issued a supplemental report on objections and
2 This tally showed 96 votes cast, of which 44 were cast for the Union, 40 against, and 12
were challenged.
3116 NLRB 1251.
4 The revised tally showed that the 5 challenges counted were against the Union, so that
the tally showed 44 votes cast for the Union and 45 against.
:840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
challenged ballots, finding that 5 remaining challenged ballots "are therefore deter-
-minative of the results of the election"; on February 19, 1957, the Board by ap-
propriate order directed the Regional Director to open and count the 5 remaining
challenged ballots and provided for a hearing if necessary in the case of 1 of the
-5, 4 challenges being then overruled and ordered to be counted; on. March 1, 1957,
a second revised tally 'of ballots: was, made; 5 and thereafter, on March 7, 1957,
the Regional Director on behalf of the.Board certified the Union as the bargaining
representative for the employees within the described bargaining unit. (Case No.
^8-RC-2674. )
(b) Upon a charge filed August 1, 1955, and amended charges filed August 11
and 25, 1955, and February 20, 1956, by International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, a complaint
'was issued by the General Counsel against Old,King Cole, .Inc.•(here Respondent),
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. A hearing was held
before Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson from April 16 through 19, 1956. He
filed his Intermediate Report on June 27, 1956; thereafter, the Board, on February 5,
1957, issued a Decision and Order adopting the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner. The order of the Board provided, as recom-
mended by Trial Examine Wilson, that four employees of the Respondent 6 be
reinstated to each of their same or substantially equivalent positions because of
-discrimination practiced against them by reason of their union activites because of
an effort by the Respondent to discourage union membership. (Case No. 8-CA-
1140.)7 These 4 employees were the 4 out of 5 whose challenged ballots were
-counted and recorded according to the second revised tally of ballots made on
.March 31, 1957, in Case No. 8-RC-2674.
(c) The Respondent on March 8, 1957, filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit its petition for. review of the order, of the Board in
Case No. 8-CA-1140, as provided for in Section 10 (f) of the Act (C. A. 6,
.Docket No. 13183). The Respondent (there Petitioner) asks
(3) That the proceedings, findings, conclusions, Decision and Order of
said Board be reviewed and that the Decision and Order be set aside, vacated
and annulled and said . . . Board be ordered to dismiss its complaint against
the Petitioner.
This petition for review at the time of the issuance of the complaint herein, at the
time of hearing, and at the time of the issuance of this Intermediate Report was
,pending in the court of appeals.8
B. The Union's request to bargain and the Respondent's refusal
On April 2, 1957, the Union by its district director made the, following. request
in writing to the Respondent:
Please be advised that it is the desire of the Union as the certified bargaining
agent for your production and maintenance employees to begin at the earliest
possible date to afford representation to these employees in respect to any
current grievances or other matters relating to wages, hours or other working
conditions in your plant.
In order to facilitate this representation, I would like to suggest that we meet
at the earliest possible date for the purpose of working out a mutually agree-
able procedure. Also, the Union wishes to initiate bargaining in respect to a
collective bargaining agreement.
Will you please advise me as to the earliest possible date on which you will
be prepared to meet with a representative of the Union to discuss these matters.
Thanking you for your prompt and courteous attention to this request,
Iam....
5 The second revised tally showed that'°the'4 challenged ballots counted.were cast for the
Union, so that this tally showed 48 votes cast for the Union and 45 against.
6 Jack Griffiths, Julia Capaldi, Beatrice Griffiths, and Nettie Heddleston. Jack Grif-
fiths was discharged July 28, 1955, Capaldi on July 29, 1955, 'and Beatrice Griffiths and
Heddleston on August 8, 1955.
7117 NLRB 297.
8 A petition for decertification, filed June 17, 1957, by an individual, one John L. Midkif i
was dismissed by the Regional Director on June 27 as not being timely filed.
OLD KING COLE, INC.
The Respondent replied to this request under date of April 9, 1957:
841
This is in reply to your letter of April 2nd, 1957, in which you state "that
it is the desire of the Union as the certified bargaining agent" for our produc-
tion and maintenance employees to afford representation in respect to certain
matters and to initiate bargaining in respect to a collective bargaining agreement.
While the National Labor Relations Board did issue a certification of repre-
sentatives on March 7th, 1957, this certification was based upon a second revised
tally of ballots in which four challenged ballots were counted. These four
ballots were determinative of the election. They were counted only after the
Board made a decision and order to the effect that this company had improperly
discharged the four persons who cast those ballots. We have filed a petition
for review of that decision and order with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit. The decision and order of the Board is not final and
unless and until it is upheld in the courts we do not consider any certification
based upon it to be lawful or binding. .
Furthermore, the election on which said certification was based was held
approximately ten months ago. Since that time there has been such a change
in the bargaining unit as to raise a question as to whether your Union is the
representative of the present employees in the unit, even if said four ballots
were to be counted.
For these reasons, we must decline at the present time to meet with any
representative of the Union for the purposes referred to in said letter.
Thereafter the Union on April 17, 1957, filed the charge set forth above.
Since the filing of the charge and issuance of the complaint in this case, the Re-
spondent steadfastly has refused to meet with the Union in connection with collec-
tive bargaining in any respect, and further, as shown above, has brought its petition
for review, in Case No. 8-CA-1140, to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
C. The bargaining unit certified by the Board is now an appropriate bargaining unit
At the hearing, the president of the Respondent, John T. Jackson, testified with
respect to changed conditions in regard to the operations of Old King Cole, Inc.,
after the certification of the Union as representative of the employees in the bargain-
ing unit. According to the testimony of President Jackson, which is uncontroverted
and substantiated by documentary evidence contained in this record, approximately
80 employees were at work in the bargaining unit in about April of the year 1956.
The operations of this Employer were contained in two divisions-the fuel cell man-
drel division and the display division. During the month of April 1957 there were
approximately 10 persons other than supervisors employed in the fuel cell mandrel
division; in the display division during that month there were some 40 employees em-
ployed, while during the following month and at the date of hearing approximately
35 employees were engaged in work in the display division. In the spring of the year
1956, the Company lost a considerable amount of airplane production work and em-
ployment fell off to approximately 50, as compared with prior employment. Also, one
of the principal customers of the Respondent established its own mandrel factory,
and as a consequence, according to President Jackson, the Respondent was required
to exert considerable effort to acquire other new business.
Because of this the Company, while not recalling all prior laid-off employees to
work, did recall a few for work in the fuel cell mandrel division; among the recalls
were those persons who were able to perform the work in connection with. the new
product requirements of the Company. Some nine new employees were hired during
the interim up to April 1957 to fill jobs requiring technical knowledge or manual
dexterity not possessed by former employees not recalled to work. President Jack-
son testified that the Company did utilize the skills and work of all employees who
had the ability to do work as required under new conditions.
The facts reflected by the record herein do show that the requirements of produc-
tion made it necessary for this Employer to engage new employees with skills not
possessed by some prior employees not recalled to work during the interim between
April 1956 and April 1957.
The Respondent argues that,the only request for bargaining made by the Union was
made in its letter of April 2, 1957. The Respondent asserts that: The certification
was based upon the votes of the four discharged persons; their status is a matter
still in doubt because the petition for review, filed with the court of appeals, has not
been disposed of; and the status of these persons as employees will remain in doubt
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
until the case is decided by the court of appeals. It is argued, further, that the issue
in this case is still the question of whether the votes of the four employees properly
were counted; that that issue is one which cannot finally be determined by the Board
because the petition for review can be determined only by the court; and that until
such determination is made, any request to bargain, the filing of any unfair labor
practice charge, and the issuance of any complaint (as here) must necessarily be con-
sidered as premature. It is said on behalf of the Respondent that because of the filing
and pendency of the petition for review, there still is no final determination of the em-
ployee status of these four individuals and, therefore, the Board is inconsistent in hav-
ing issued a complaint before the dispute set forth in the petition for review now pend-
ing before the court of appeals is resolved.
Counsel for the Respondent submits the following question: "What if an employer,
in the present position of, the Respondent, did bargain? Suppose it entered into
some kind of an agreement-maybe even an agreement with Union security clauses,
and the Court found that the four persons had not been discriminatorily discharged?"
He then argues that "then the Respondent would have bargained contrary to the
•desires of its employees. Such a situation would not lead to the industrial peace and
harmony which is intended by the National Labor Relations Act." The question
is academic, and the argument is specious.
On the basis of testimony introduced and accepted at the hearing herein, the Trial
Examiner is of the opinion that there has been no real reason advanced for the Re-
spondent effectively to challenge the unit decided by the Board to be appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The Respondent's contention that change in
-business operations of the Respondent justifies its refusal to recognize the Union as the
certified collective-bargaining representative is without merit. The Board long has
.followed the policy that issues decided in a prior representation proceeding cannot be
relitigated in a proceeding based upon unfair labor practices; therefore, the Trial Ex-
aminer here will not undertake to redetermine the unit issue in the instant complaint
proceeding. The Trial Examiner, following the Board, must necessarily hold that
the unit is unchanged since the time the Union first was certified as the bargaining
representative for employees. of the Respondent in the unit. There is no evidence
here of a loss of majority of employees within the bargaining unit who wish the Union
to represent them. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Globe Automatic Sprinkler Company, 199 F.
2d 64, 70 (C. A. 3). See also Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. N. L. R. B., 313
U. S. 146, 162; N. L. R. B. v. Botany Worsted Mills, 133 F. 2d 876, 879 (C. A. 3),
-cert. denied 319 U. S. 751; and The Baker & Taylor Co., 109 NLRB 245, 246.
In Ray Brooks v. N. L. R. B., 348 U. S. 96, the Supreme Court of the United
States pointed out that
. .. the Board evolved a number of working rules, of which the following
are relevant to our purpose:
(a) A certification, if based on a Board-conducted election, must be honored
for a "reasonable" period, ordinarily "one year," in the absence of " unusual
circumstances."
(b) "Unusual circumstances" were found in at least three situations: (1) the
certified union dissolved or became defunct; (2) as a result of a schism, sub-
stantially all the members and officers of the certified union transferred their
affiliation to a new local or international ; (3) the size of the bargaining unit
fluctuated radically within a short -time.
'The Respondent contends that very unusual circumstances exist in the instant case:
(1) There was an extremely close election.
(2) Because of a change in operation after the election, the number of production
and maintenance employees was cut almost in half.
(3) Of the approximately 50 production and maintenance employees employed
at the time the Union's letter of April 2, 1957, was received, 9-or approximately
20 percent-were new employees, hired because of change in the Respondent's
operations and because of their different skills and experience .9
However, the Supreme Court in Ray Brooks specifically noted that the Board, in
adhering to its long-established "one-year certification" rule, did so properly and
O The unusual circumstances referred to were found by the Board (as noted in the
Brooks case) in Public Service Electric and Gas Co., 59 NLRB 325; Brightwater Paper
Company, 54 NLRB 1102; Carson Pirie Scott & Company, 09 NLRB 935; and Westing-
house Electric & Manufacturing Company, 38 NLRB 404, 409.
OLD KING COLE, INC. 843.
that this was "a matter appropriately determined by the Board 's administrative
.authority":
Although the Board may, if the facts warrant , revoke a certification or agree
not to pursue a charge of an unfair labor practice ,- these are matters for the
Board ; they do not justify employer self-help or judicial intervention. The
underlying purpose of this statute is industrial peace. To allow employers to
rely on employees ' rights in refusing to bargain with the formally designated
union is not conducive to that end , it is inimical to it.
It is not contended , nor can the Trial Examiner find, that the administrative
.procedures followed or the action of the Board in Case No. 8-RC-2674 were in any
sense arbitrary or capricious or in contravention of the administrative authority
-conferred upon the Board by the Congress for the resolution of representation cases
.arising under Section 9 (c) of the Act . The Board , rightfully and properly , insofar
as the record herein shows , correctly determined that the four employees of the
'Respondent who were discharged in July and August 1955 were eligible to vote at the
secret election conducted by the Board.
The Order of the Board entered in Case No. 8-CA-1140 on February 5, 1957,
was a final order of the Board within the meaning of Section 10 (f) of the Act.
This Trial Examiner is bound by the provisions of that Order , and cannot speculate
as to what might happen should the court of appeals ultimately decide that the
Board 's decision in that case should be modified , enforced , or reversed.
Here the Union has been certified , under the Act and according to the established
;procedures of the Board, as the representative of the described group of employees
,of the Respondent , determined to be an appropriate bargaining unit after exercise
of a full investigatory process conducted by the Board and the Regional Director.
The processes provided by Section 9 of the Act and the Rules and Regulations of the
Board are investigatory in nature and are not adversary . The decision of the Board
,in any such case, if not final, is rarely to be disturbed. Padkard Motor Car Company
v. N. L. R. B., 330 U. S. 485, 491.
The Board, in Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, 101 NLRB 1569, determined
that the employer by refusing to bargain collectively with the certified union as
representative of a unit previously found to be appropriate , was guilty of unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act . When that
employer refused to comply with the order of the Board , requiring it to bargain
with the union , the Board brought enforcement proceedings under Section 10 (e)
,of the Act. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, ordering enforcement
,of the Board's order , reviewed the facts underlying the findings of the Board in its
determination of an appropriate bargaining unit , and recalled the general rule that
,under Section 9 (c) of the Act the judicial function of the Courts in relation to
the processes of the Board in representation proceedings is confined to a guaranty
against arbitrary and irrational Board action . N. L. R. B. v. Stanolind Oil and
'Gas Company , 208 F . 2d 239 (C. A. 10 ), and cases cited therein.
Concluding Findings
United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization certified by the Board as the representative of the employees of
the Respondent in a unit comprised of all production and maintenance employees
-at the Respondent 's Louisville, Ohio, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
-professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Respondent , since the certification of the said Union as such representative,
-has refused and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with that Union as the
representative of the employees in the above -described unit and by such refusal
-contravened and continues to contravene the provisions of Section 8 (a) (5) of
,the Act, Further, by refusing to bargain collectively with the said Union, as such
-representative , the Respondent has contravened and continues to contravene the
provisions of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, in that such refusal has the necessary
effect of interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the rights guaranteed
to them under Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The refusal of the Respondent to bargain collectively with United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, as the representative of the
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the Respondent in a properly certified bargaining unit, as set forth
in section III of this Intermediate Report, in connection with the business activities
described in section I herein, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States of the United 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, since on or about April 9, 1957, and at all
times thereafter refused and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, and having found fur-
ther that the Respondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively with said
Union with respect to wages, hours of employment, and conditions of employment,
and all other matters as required by the Act and by so doing has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist
therefrom.
On 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. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain collectively with the aforesaid
Union as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees
at its Louisville, Ohio, plant (excluding office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act), the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act.
3. By refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain with the said Union, as afore-
said, the Respondent has interfered with and continued to interfere with the rights
guaranteed to its employees under Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in
and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
4. The above-described 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.]
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as'the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Louisville,
Ohio, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
OLD KING COLE, 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.