Olson Rug Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 366 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's recommendation
that the Petitioner's challenge to the ballot of Roger Kelsey be sus-
tained. The Employer contends that Kelsey, grandson of the Em-
ployer's president, and a 17-year-old high school student, who has
worked for the past 5 summers and sporadically during school vaca-
tions and Saturdays, has a reasonable expectancy of forthcoming em-
ployment. The record indicates that in the summertime, Kelsey helps
load and unload trucks; during the vacations, he works at the grain
elevator when the Employer is shorthanded. Kelsey is covered by the
Employer's Blue Cross policy, but he does not receive any paid vaca-
tions as do other employees. Although Kelsey believes that he has
a reasonable expectancy of full-time employment, upon analysis of the
entire record, we agree with the Regional Director that Kelsey is a
temporary or casual employee, and we therefore adopt his recom-
mendation that the challenge to his ballot be sustained.'
The Employer challenged the ballot of William Givens, who, the
Petitioner alleged, had been discriminatorily discharged. The Peti-
tioner subsequently filed an unfair labor practice charge (5-CA-1194)
to this effect. The Regional Director made no recommendation as to
the disposition of the ballot at this time. We will not now rule on
Givens' ballot. If it should appear that Givens' ballot is determina-
tive of the results of the election, we will make a final disposition of the
matter after the outcome of the unfair labor practice proceeding.2
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Fifth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of Clarence Reed, Leonard Rausch, and
Allen Everett, and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of
ballots.]
1 Brown -Forman Distillers Corporation , 118 NLRB 454 ; Westinghouse Air Brake Com-
pany, 119 NLRB 1391.
9B & It News Co, 92 NLRB 1134, 1135, footnote 2; Old King Cole Display, Inc.,
116 NLRB 1251, 1253.
Olson Rug Company and Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-2587. April 10, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 19, 1957, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler 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 Interme-
diate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
120 NLRB No. 60.
OLSON RUG COMPANY 367
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting and supple-
mental 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 Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
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 In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.
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, Olson Rug Com-
pany, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment with Tex-
tile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, as exclusive representa-
tive of all production and maintenance employees at its plant at 2800•
North Pulaski Drive, Chicago, Illinois, including plant clerical em-
ployees and shipping and receiving employees, but excluding office
clerical employees, mailing department employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Engaging in any like or related conduct interfering with the
efforts of Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, to negoti-
ate for or represent the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
as exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be
1 In the event that this Order is enforced by 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."
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,
after having been duly signed by Respondent, be posted by Respond-
ent immediately upon the receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a
period of not less than sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that such notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director in writing within ten (10) days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.
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 bargain collectively upon request with Textile
Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, we
will embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at our plant at
2800 North Pulaski Drive, Chicago, Illinois, including plant
clerical employees and shipping and receiving employees, but
excluding office clerical employees, mailing department em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
OLSON RUG 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
Upon a charge filed by Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued
a complaint dated October 2, 1957, against Olson Rug Company, herein called
Respondent , alleging that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint and charge were duly served upon Respondent, in
OLSON RUG COMPANY 369
response to which Respondent filed an answer denying the unfair labor practices
alleged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on October 28, 1957, at Chicago, Illinois,
before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were represented at the
hearing and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues; they were also given opportunity
for oral argument at the close of the hearing and to file briefs as well.
Upon'the entire record in the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Illinois corporation with its principal office and place of business
in Chicago where it is engaged in the manufacture., sale, and distribution of rugs
and carpets. In 1956 Respondent made out-of-State purchases and sales valued,
respectively, in excess of $500,000.
Respondent, as all parties agree, is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on May 7,
1957 (Case No. 13-RC-5369), an election by secret ballot was conducted on May
24, 1957, under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Board's Thirteenth
Region among Respondent's employees in a production and maintenance unit found
appropriate by the Board and hereinafter described. The Union received a majority
of the votes cast 1 and Respondent herein then filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated the objections and, on
June 21, 1957, issued and served upon the parties a report on objections. In his report,
the Regional Director recommended that the objections be overruled and the Union
be certified. Respondent filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report and
requested a hearing in regard to three of its objections. On August 29, 1957, the
Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives (Olson
Rug Company, 118 NLRB 1274), in which the Board certified the Union as exclusive
bargaining representative upon finding no merit in the mentioned objections.
On or about September 8, 1957, and at various times thereafter, the Union requested
Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union as statutory bargaining repre-
sentative; Respondent has refused and still refuses such requests. Admitting its
refusal, Respondent asserts in defense that the Union was not selected by a majority
of the employees in the unit,2 that the Board incorrectly ruled upon the exceptions
to the Regional Director's report, and that the Board should have granted Respondent's
request for hearing on the exceptions.3
Respondent thus presents nothing here which was not considered and resolved by
the Board in the 'aforementioned representation case. The certification issued by
the Board in that proceeding is fully operative so far as I am concerned; and, by
refusing to honor such certification and to bargain with the Union, the Respondent
has violated and is violating Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of 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
connection with its business operations described in section I, above , have a close,
1 Of approximately 958 eligible voters, 929 cast ballots ; 466 voted for the Union,
413 voted against the Uiiion, 10 cast void ballots, and 40 cast challenged ballots.
To the effect that a certification is properly made on the basis of a majority of par-
ticipating voters and that such majority need not constitute a majority of the eligible
voters, see, for example, N. L. R. B. v. Standard Lsme & Stone Co, 149 F 2d 435,
436-439 (C A. 4), cert. denied 326 U. S. 723.
$ Respondent's objections and exceptions and the Regional Director's report, all of
which were before the Board, together contain the evidentiary basis for Respondent's
objections Moreover, Respondent offered no additional or new testimony or other evidence
at the hearing before me and it also did not particularize or otherwise indicate what other
evidence, If any, It would have adduced at a hearing before the Board on its exceptions
Cf Fay v. Douds, 172 F 2d 720, 725 (C A 2). See, also, The Huniko Co Inc., 117
NLRB 185
483142-59-vol. 120-25
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies 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. Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees employed by Respondent at its
rug manufacturing plant at 2800 North Pulaski Road , Chicago, Illinois, including
plant clerical employees and shipping and receiving employees , but excluding office
clerical employees , mailing department employees, professional employees , guards,
and all 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. At all times since August 29, 1957 , the Union has been and continues to be
the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on and after September 8, 1957, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid unit, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act.
5: By, the aforesaid refusal to bargain collectively , the Respondent has interfered
with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) 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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication ]
Warren Petroleum ' Corporation and Petroleum Trades Em-
ployees' Union , Inc. Case No. 22-CA-7. April 11, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 9, 1957, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman 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
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port, for the sole purpose of limiting the conclusions of law and
recommended order of the Trial Examiner to Respondent's Newark,
New Jersey, terminal, the only plant involved in this proceeding.
The General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent
have entered into a stipulation agreeing to this amendment.
120 NLRB No. 61.