Quaker Markets, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1299 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

QUAKER MARKETS, INC., THREE 1299
3. The president and secretary-treasurer of the petitioning Union, neither of whom is an
employee of the Employer, stationed themselves at the entrance gate leading to the Employer's
premises and from approximately 7 a. in. on March 24, 1954, to approximately the time of the
commencement of the balloting in this case, distributed to the employees, as they passed
through the Employer's gate, handbills and propaganda urging the employees to vote for the
Petitioner.
(1) Investigation reveals that the Employer posted three official notices of election in
prominent places in the plant. One of these notices was defaced by person(s) unknown, such
defacement consisting of marking an "X" in the "YES" box in the sample ballot appearing
on the notice of election. On the afternoon of the day preceding the election, John O'Shea,
night superintendent, observed this defacement and on the morning of the election brought it to
the attention of other employer officials. No evidence was submitted or discovered that Em-
ployer made any attempts to remedy the situation when O'Shea observed or reported the deface-
ment. The Employer made no effort to contact the office of the undersigned concerning same or
make such known to the Board agent prior to the commencement of the election. No evidence
was submitted nor adduced to in any way indicate Petitioner was responsible for the deface-
ment. It is the conclusion oftheundersignedthat no merit attaches to this part of the objection.
(2) Investigation reveals that the polls opened approximately 10 minutes later than the
scheduled opening time, the Board agent having experienced difficulty in finding the plant.
No objection was made to the Board agent by Employer's representative to the belated
opening of the polls, nor was evidence submitted or adduced showing that any of the em-
ployees were disenfranchised because of this slight deviation from the scheduled hours of
voting. (Only 2 eligible employees failed to vote.) These 2 employees who did not vote were
confined to the hospital on the day of the election and did not appear at the polls to vote. No
claim is made that any employee was denied the right to vote, nor in any event could the
ballots of the 2 absent employees have affected the results of the election. It is the conclusion
of the undersigned that there is no merit to this part of the objection.
(3) Investigation reveals that representatives of Petitioner did distribute handbills at the
gate to Employer's plant from approximately 7 a. in. to approximately 8 a. in. on the morning
of the election. The plant gate is at least 300 feet from the polling place and no representative
of Petitioner was at or near the polling place during the voting hoursi,No allegation is made
that Petitioner's handbills were coercive in context. The undersigned concludes that Petitioner
did not transgress the electioneering rules of the Board 1 and that no merit attaches to this
part of the objection.
It is the recommendation of the undersigned that the objections dismissed in toto and that
Petitioner be certified as representative of the employees for purposes of collective bar-
gaining in the unit found appropriate.
'Linde Air Products Division, 94 NLRB 640.
QUAKER MARKETS, INC., THREE and AMALGAMATED
MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH
AMERICA, AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES' UNION,
LOCAL 590, AFL
BARLETTA GROCERY COMPANY, INC., BARLETTA MAR-
KETS, INC., ONE, BARLETTA MARKETS, INC., TWO,
BARLETTA MARKETS, INC., THREE, AND QUAKER MAR-
KETS, INC., ONE, QUAKER MARKETS, INC., TWO, QUAKER
MARKETS, INC., THREE and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUT-
TERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA,
AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL 590,
AFL. Cases Nos. 6-CA-733 and 6-CA-748. June 11, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 15, 1953, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceed-
108 NLRB No. 180.
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ings , finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were en-
gaging 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 Intermediate Report
attached hereto . The Trial Examiner further found that the
Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dis-
missal of those allegations . Thereafter , the Respondents filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex-
aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions- and brief,
and the entire record in these cases and hereby adopts the
findings , ' conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases , and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents,
Barletta Grocery Company, Inc., and Barletta Markets, Inc.,
One, both located at Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania ; Barletta
Markets, Inc ., Two, Clearfield , Pennsylvania ; Barletta Markets,
Inc., Three, and Quaker Markets, Inc., One, both located at
DuBois , Pennsylvania ; Quaker Markets, Inc., Two, and Quaker
Markets, Inc., Three, both located at Altoona, Pennsylvania;
their officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, Amalgamated Food
Employees' Union, Local 590, AFL, or in any other labor
organization of their employees , by discriminating in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition
of employment , because of their membership in, or activity on
behalf of , any such labor organization.
i The Respondents also requested oral argument. This request is denied as the record,
including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the
parties.
2 We do not pass upon the Trial Examiner's initial determination that the operations of
Barletta Grocery Company, Inc., alone, warrant the assertion of jurisdiction herein. It is
clear, as further found by the Trial Examiner, that Respondents constitute a common em-
ployer for jurisdictional purposes and we shall assert jurisdiction based on the totality of
their operations. The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 625. In agreeing to assert
jurisdiction in these proceedings, Chairman Farmer and Member Beeson are not thereby to
be deemed as concurring with the Board's present jurisdictional standards as a permanent
policy.
3 We find it unnecessary to pass upon whether the conduct of Tony Maruka was violative of
Section 8 (a) (1)oftheAct, in view of our agreement with the Trial Examiner that Respondents'
other conduct, as detailed in the intermediate Report, violated this Section of the Act.
QUAKER MARKETS, INC., THREE 1301
(2)'Interrogating their employees concerning their member-
ship in, or activities on behalf of, Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America , Amalgamated Food
Employees ' Union , Local 590 , AFL, or any other labor organi-
zation, in a manner constituting interference , restraint, or
coercion , in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
(c) Threatening employees with economic reprisals if union
organization is successful , and promising economic benefits if
union organization is rejected.
(d) Inducing their employees by pay increases to forego or
cease activities on behalf of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America , Amalgamated Food
Employees ' Union , Local 590 , AFL, or any other labor organi-
zation.
(e) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, Amalgamated Food Employees ' Union, Local 590,
AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose 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 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) Offer to Roy O. Fluke immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Roy O. Fluke in the manner set forth in the
section of the Intermediate Report entitled " The Remedy" for
any loss of pay he mayhave sufferedby reason of the Respond-
ents ' discrimination against him.,
(c) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents,
for examination and copying , all payroll records , social-
security payment records , timecards , personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount
of back pay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms
of this Decision and Order.
(d) Post at their store , Quaker Markets, Inc., Three , Altoona,
Pennsylvania , copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondents' representative , be posted by the
4In 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 "
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by them for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges that the Respondents engaged in acts of
surveillance.
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and 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
National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees
that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership inAmalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
Amalgamated Food Employees ' Union , Local 590 , AFL, or
in any other labor organization of our employees , by dis-
criminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning
their union affiliation and activities in a manner constitut-
ing interference , restraint , or coercion in violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (1) of the Act; threaten our employees with
economic reprisals because of their union membership
and activities ; promise or grant raises in pay and better
working conditions or other rewards in return for fore-
going or ceasing union membership or activity.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form , join, or assist Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America , Amalgamated Food Employees ' Union, Local
590, AFL, or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose 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 membership in a labor organization as a condi-
QUAKER MARKETS, INC., THREE 1303
tion of employment, as authorized inSection8(a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer to Roy O. Fluke immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for
any loss of pay suffered by him as a result of the dis-
crimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, or refrain from be-
coming, members of the above-named Union or any other labor
organization , except to the extent that this rightmay be affected
by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
QUAKER MARKETS, INC., THREE, BARLETTA
GROCERY COMPANY, INC., BARLETTA MAR-
KETS, INC., ONE, BARLETTA MARKETS, INC.,
TWO, BARLETTA MARKETS, INC., THREE,
QUAKER MARKETS, INC., ONE, QUAKER
MARKETS, INC., TWO
Employers.
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
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the Labor Management Relations Act of
1947, 61 Stat . 136 (herein called the Act), was heard in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, on
October 21 and 22, 1953, pursuant to due notice to all parties The consolidated complaint,
issued on September 11, 1953, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, i
and based on charges duly filed and served, alleges that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act in their
answer, duly filed, the Respondents concede certain facts with respect to their operations but
deny their operations affect commerce as defined in the Act and deny the commission of any
unfair labor practices
All parties were represented atthehearing , afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine
and cross -examinewitnesses , to introduce relevant evidence , to argue orally , and to file briefs
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The parties stipulated that Quaker Markets, Inc., One, Two and Three, herein called Quaker,
Barletta Markets, Inc , One, Two and Three, herein called Barletta, and Barletta Grocery
i The General Counsel and the staff attorney appearing for him at the hearing are referred
to as the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company, Inc , herein called Barletta Grocery, collectively referred to as the Respondents or
Companies, are each Pennsylvania corporations with their principal offices in Punxsutawney,
Pennsylvania, and consists of six retail stores located in Punxsutawney, Dubois, Altoona, and
Clearfield, and a warehouse in Punxsutawney, where they are engaged in the sale and distri-
bution of groceries , meats, produce, and other products. For some time prior to the date of
incorporation, February 1953, the business was conducted as a partnership The corporations
have identical officers and directors, who are the sole owners thereof, namely
Joseph J Barletta, president Thomas Barletta, secretary
Felix Barletta, vice president George Barletta, treasurer
Joseph Barletta is general manager of entire enterprise , while Felix acts in a supervisory
capacity, and George and Thomas make all purchases of groceries and meats, respectively.
Anthony Barletta handles all produce purchases. Vince Monahan is sales supervisor and is
in charge of personnel and labor relations . All of the foregoing individuals are paid by Bar-
letta Grocery, except Felix, who is paid by Quaker Markets, Three
Barletta Grocery purchases all merchandise and food for the stores, except that the individ-
ual managers may make direct purchases of eggs, milk, bread, and small items, which are
shipped to the warehouse and then delivered to the stores in company trucks Meats are also
purchased by Barletta Grocery and, at least at times, shipments are made directly to the
stores. All purchases of merchandise and meats are made by the store manager and meat
department manager on requisition to Barletta Grocery which makes no charge to the individ-
ual markets on the purchase price. The managers are required to submit daily reports to
Barletta Grocery and are directly responsible to Monahan for the management and operation
of their stores The corporations do not own the buildings occupied and used by them and
each is responsible for the payment of leasing or rental charges Similarly, each corporation
pays its own employees and submits payroll vouchers to Barletta Grocery All records per-
taining to the operation and administration of the stores are maintained by Barletta Grocery
and its employees at its office in Punxsutawney Joseph Barletta and Monahan prescribe
advertising policy, principally newspaper advertising , for all the stores Likewise, a common
labor policy exists in respect to the warehouse and store employees Thus, Monahan is respon-
sible for the hiring and firing of personnel and uniform vacations and holidays are granted to
all employees Store employees work the samehours and receive overtime, computed on their
basic salary.
During the period September 1, 1952, to August 31, 1953, Barletta Grocery purchased
materials , supplies, groceries , meats, produce, and other products valued in excess of
$1,000,000, of which about 35 percent, or $385,000 was shipped directly to it from points
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and more than 20 percent, or $ 220,000, repre-
sented indirect flow of purchases from places outside the Commonwealth, Approximately 95
percent of the total purchases was sold and shipped to Quaker and Barletta
In the same period the stores made purchases of the above-mentioned items, none of which
were shipped or transported directly to them from outside the Commonwealth, as follows:
Store Total value of
purchases
Quaker, One $700,000
Quaker, Two 800,000
Barletta, One 250,000
Barletta, Two 125,000
Barletta, Three 75,000
Purchased and Indirect inflow of pur-
received from chases from outside
Barletta Grocery the Commonwealth
601o or $420,000 251o of 4K6 or $70,000
50/c or 400,000 25% of 50%o or 100,000
6016 or 150,000 25% of 40% or 25,000
651o or 81,250 251/'o of 351o or 10,937
65% or 48,750 25% of 35% or 6,563
Quaker , Three, first opened March 31, 1953, and from that date to August 31, 1953, made
similar purchases valued in excess of $500,000 , of which about 50 percent , or $250,000, was
received from Barletta Grocery and 25 percent of the remaining 50 percent , or $62,500,
represented indirect inflow of purchases from points outside the Commonwealth
The Respondents contest the right of the Board to assert jurisdiction over their activities
for the reason that each of the stores is engaged in a purely local business and although
Barletta Grocery receives goods from outside the Commonwealth it sells only to customers
QUAKER MARKETS, INC., THREE 1305
located therein and the Respondents deny that their operations constitute an integrated enter-
prise At the conclusion of the case counsel for the Respondents moved to dismiss the pro-
ceedings on jurisdictional grounds since the out-of-State purchases by Barletta Grocery
amount to less than Board policy requirements . The motion was taken under advisement and,
for the reasons stated below, it is now denied.
The record herein, including the testimony of Joseph Barletta, plainly shows that Barletta
Grocery maintains and operates a warehouse and office for the purpose of servicing Quaker
and Barletta stores in merchandising and administrative matters . Each of the various corpora-
tions have the same officers and directors , and each is operated under central control with
respect to purchases , advertising methods, interchange of employees , employment procedures,
and labor relations The undersigned therefore finds that the warehouse and stores are
operated as an integrated enterprise and that the Respondents constitute a single employer
within the meaning of the Act (Giant Markets, Inc., et al., 107 NLRB 10, Krambo Food Stores,
Inc., 98 NLRB 1320.)
The next question to be determined is whether the operations of the Respondents meet the
standards for asserting jurisdiction as heretofore announced by the Board .2 Under applicable
standards , it is necessary to establish that the direct inflow of out-of-State goods amounted
to $ 500,000 per year, or the indirect inflow amounted to $1,000,000 , of that the percentages
of each of these categories taken together add up to 100 According to the stipulation of the
parties the total purchases of Barletta Grocery were valued in excess of $ 1,100,000, of which
about $385,000 represented direct shipments from outside the Commonwealth or about 77 per-
cent of the minimum requirement on such shipments The value of the indirect inflow of pur-
chases was in excess of 20 percent of the total purchases , or about $220 ,000, which is about
22 percent of the minimum requirement on inflow of this character . Thus, the sum total of the
percentages is but 1 point below the necessary 100, of the Board requirement Since the stipu-
lation states the purchases were valued " in excess of $ 1,100,000" of which "approximately
35 percent" represented direct inflow and "in excess of 20 percent " represented indirect
inflow, and as the stipulation further discloses that the store purchases from Barletta Grocery
were valued at approximately $1,350,000, the undersigned concludes that the minimum policy
requirements have been met through the operations of Barletta Grocery alone. Moreover,
having found that the Respondents constitute a single employer , the value of the indirect inflow
of purchases by the individual stores may be properly considered in applying the totality-of-
operations test and thus the combined percentages warrant the assertion of jurisdiction under
Board policy (Giant Markets. Inc , and Krambo Food Stores, supra )
The undersigned therefore finds that the Respondents are engaged in commerce as defined
in the Act.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Amalgamated Food
Employees ' Union , Local 590, AFL (herein called the Union ), is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Organizational activities ; acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion
The acts and events related below occurred at Quaker , Three There is nothing in the
record to indicate that employees at the other stores or the warehouse engaged in any organi-
zational activities
Roy 0 Fluke , who had had considerable experience in grocery stores, was employed by
Monahan and commenced working at Quaker , Three , on March 14 , 1953 Prior to the opening
of the store on March 31 , his duties consisted of stocking the shelves and thereafter he per-
formed general work such as moving merchandise from the storeroom and placing it on the
shelves, maintaining the frozen food case , and painting signs For some time after the opening
2 See Sixteenth Annual Report of the Board for the fiscal year which ended June 30, 1951,
pp. 15-19 , and Seventeenth Annual Report of the Board for the fiscal year which ended June 30,
1952, pp. 9-11.
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the market Felix or Phil Barletta, hereafter simply referred to as Barletta, and Monahan
remained continuously at the store while "Red" Edmundson acted as manager
About 3 or 4 weeks after the store opened Fluke said he "started talking union" to some of
the employees and in early June he wrote to the Union at its headquarters in Pittsburgh. As a
result of this letter Thomas Lane, one of the Union's representatives, called upon Fluke at
his home, on June 15, where they discussed organization of the employees and procedures to
be followed. Fluke signed an application for membership in the Union and obtained a supply of
cards from Lane for the purpose of signing up the employees. Fluke stated the store had
about 35 employees at that time and in the interval, June 15 to June 19, he talked to a majority
of them concerning the Union and obtained about 10 signed membership application cards.
Harold G. Eyster was employed about 1 week prior to the opening of the store as a stockboy
and his duties consisted of working in the storeroom and stocking shelves Eyster brought up
the subject of union organization with employees he believed to be interested in such a move-
ment and in the latter part of April he discussed the matter with Fluke. About the third week in
May, Barletta came to Eyster, at the storeroom, and asked if anyone had approached him "in
relationship with the union " Eyster replied that a representative of the United Mine Workers
had talked to him and that there had been some discussion and conversation among the em-
ployees concerning that organization as well as the AFL. Barletta inquired if he had joined
the Union and Eyster said he had not done so Barletta stated he did not think the United Mine
Workers could do much for the employees and the discussion ended About 1 week later
Monahan told Eyster he was being laid off because business was bad but they would call him
when needed. Two other employees were separated the same day. Eyster was laid off on
Saturday and the following Monday he was replaced by another man At the time of his layoff,
or perhaps later , Eyster inquired about his replacement and Monahan said he was a college
student who had had part-time employment at one of the other stores and was again returning
to work. 3
Charles Blackburn, a 16-year old high school student, was employed on March 31 on a part-
time basis performing such tasks as stocking shelves and filling the dairy case On June 15,
Fluke discussed the Union with Blackburn and requested him to sign a card, which he did.
Blackburn said "a couple of days later" he was in the back room of the store with employees
Gatsche and Yeckley when Barletta came in and asked "who signed the cards " The employees
admitted they had signed up whereupon Barletta stated "he didn't think the union could do
much for the store" and suggested that they consult with their parents on this matter. That
evening Blackburn talked to his parents who apparently said he had made a mistake in joining
the Union. The same evening, or the following day, the three employees discussed the Union
and came to the conclusion that their joining had been a big mistake The day after his con-
versation with Barletta Blackburn informed him of his decision and announced that he was
going to get back his card Barletts said that was up to him.
Charles Gatsche, a 17-year old high school student, was employed about March 31 as a
stockboy, obviously on a part-time or temporary basis Fluke asked Gatsche to join the Union
on June 15, which he did Gatsche testified that Barletta approached Blackburn, Yeckley, and
himself and asked if they had joined the Union. When they admitted they had done so he sug-
gested that they discuss the matter with their parents. Gatsche said the conversation took
place the same afternoon, but after. Fluke had been discharged. Gatsche related that immedi-
ately following Barletta's conversation the three employees decided they could get along
without the Union and that evening he discussed the matter with his parents, who opposed his
becoming a member The next day he told Barletta he did not want the Union and he answered
it was up to him
Esther G. Woomer, cashier at the store, stated that on June 18, she signed a union card at
Fluke's request, but about 30 minutes later she asked Fluke to return it and although he
promised to do so, she never received her card Woomer testified that in the early afternoon
of the same day Barletta "just asked me if he Fluke got me to sign for the union" and she
answered, "Yes " Woomer worked on June 19, but she could not recall whether Fluke was
3The General Counsel moved to amend his complaint to include the conversation between
Barletta and Eyster as a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) The motion was granted over objection
of counsel for the Respondents. At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, counsel for
the Companies moved for a continuance on the grounds that he was taken by surprise by the
foregoing amendment. When the undersigned granted his motion and continued the case from
October 22 to October 28, counsel withdrew his request.
QUAKER MARKETS, INC., THREE 1307
laid off that day. Later, on both direct and cross-examination, Woomer testified that Barletta
had the above-conversation with her the same afternoon that Fluke was discharged and sub-
sequent to the dismissal action.
Andrew Purcell , part-time butcher in the meat department , stated that during the second
week in June , Fluke talked to him about the Union and that he signed a card . Purcell also
signed up at least two of the girls in his department and gave the cards to Fluke
Barletta testified that some of the younger employees informed him they had joined the
Union and when they asked him what they should do, he told them it was up to them but to talk
to their parents about the matter Some of the married women advised him of their member-
ship in the Union and he told them to get it straightened out at home In this connection he
said Woomer informed him of her membership and he replied there was nothing to be done
about it These, he stated, were the only discussions he had with anyone concerning the Union.
Barletta said that on one occasion Eyster reported that employees in the storeroom had
threatened to throw him out because he was not doing his share of the work and he told Eyster
to do his job and he would get along with them . He did not remember having any conversation
with Eyster concerning unions.
Monahan stated he discharged Eyster and two other employees because of business condi-
tions. He explained this to Eyster who said he understood the reason for his termination and
they parted on friendly terms Eyster was replaced by a college student who had been tempo-
rarily employed at another store and was returning to work at Quaker, Three.
B. The discharge of Fluke
At the time of employment Fluke received $ 40 per week which was increased to $ 50 about
April 1 or April 15 . Shortly thereafter Barletta also gave him a $ 5 "bonus " for suggesting a
certain type of cleaner to be used in scrubbing floors. Fluke further testified he never
received any criticism or complaint from Barletta , Monahan, or Edmundson in regard to his
work or conduct at the store.
Fluke reported for work on Friday, June 19, the regular payday, and was paid , including
wages for Saturday , about noon . Later that afternoon Monahan came to the store and told Fluke
his "services were no longer wanted ." When Fluke asked why he wigs being discharged
Monahan said , " For trying to organize a union in the store " Fluke had had no prior notice
or warning that he was going to be discharged and he was completely surprised by the action.
He then left the premises and has never been reemployed
Monahan testified that he employed Fluke as well as other personnel for Quaker. Three, and
when the store opened there were approximately 55 employees . Monahan remained at the store
for 4 or 5 weeks in order to train Edmundson, who had been transferred from another store,
as manager and subsequently made regular visits on Tuesday and Friday . Barletta was also
at the store constantly during this period Edmundson proved unsatisfactory and his employ-
ment was terminated about 1 or 2 months later Barletta then acted as manager until a Mr
Lingenfelter was transferred from another market to fill this vacancy in about July or August.
However, Barletta still remained at the store
Monahan admitted that Fluke was granted a $ 10 weekly increase 2 or 3 weeks after the
store opened and that only 4 other employees received wage increases during the period that
Fluke was employed . These employees were still working at the time of the hearing In respect
to Fluke's discharge Monahan stated that he wentto the store on June 19, and told Fluke, "We
have to cut the clerk hire . . . I am going to have to let you go . Our expenses are
too high . . . ." Fluke asked why he was being discharged and when Monahan repeated the
reason, he replied, "There must be more than that." Fluke was thereupon discharged
Monahan denied that he told Fluke he was being dismissed for trying to organize a union at
the store He further asserted he first learned of organizational activities through Barletta
about 1 week after Fluke's dismissal.
Monahan said that in opening a new store it is not unusual to hire an excess number of em-
ployees and to later reduce the staff in line with business conditions. He further stated that he
and officials of the Companies held meetings every Wednesday at Punxsutawney at which
various matters relating to the stores werediscussed. He related that at one of these meetings,
during April, they discussed an audit which showed that Quaker, Three, had been operating at
a loss. The audit disclosed that clerical personnel was an important factor in operating ex-
pense so Joseph Barletta instructed him to reduce the force at this store. Accordingly, be-
tween April 15 and June 19, Monahan said he terminated 18 employees and in addition 4 em-
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees voluntarily quit The reduction-in-force program was accomplished by separating
"several employees from week to week," and the subject of the size of the clerical staff was
discussed at the regular meetings held during this period. Monahan stated he conferred with
the store manager who made recommendations as to the particular employee or employees
to be separated concerning the layoffs Monahan would then report to the officials at the
weekly meeting and when it was decided which employees were to be laid off he effectuated
the actual separation
Monahan testified that shortly after the store opened Fluke came to work with a black eye
and when he inquired how he got it Fluke explained he was helping his father repair a floor
or "something of that nature." Fluke, according to Monahan, was discussed at the weekly
meetings from the time he was employed and after the black eye incident he was criticized
for keeping Fluke, but nevertheless, he took no steps toward dismissing him About the
latter part of April, Monahan said that Fluke's work became "very unsatisfactory" in that
he did not properly stamp merchandise, was sloppy in his display work, reported late several
times, talked too much, refused to carry out packages for customers, ate merchandise out of
crates, and failed to assume his responsibilities Monahan observed about 50 percent of these
derelictions and received reports from Edmundson and Barletta on Fluke's conduct. Ad-
mittedly. Monahan did not caution or speak to Fluke concerning the acts he observed but
stated he instructed Edmundson to do something about Fluke's work. Monahan said that at
the weekly meeting held on Wednesday, June 17, the officials discussed further reductions and
decided to discharge Fluke because he was not the most desirable employee, plus the fact
that he was receiving $ 50 per week Fluke was not given any advance notice of his discharge
and he was terminated as set forth above
Barletta said he was in charge of Quaker, Three, from the time of its opening until Lingen-
felter became manager (which date was not specified), when he relinquished some of his
duties, although he continued to exercise supervision over this market as well as others He
further stated that Edmundson was manager from March 31 to the first week in May when his
employment ceased
Barletta testified that the officials discussed the question of reducing the number of em-
ployees at Quaker, Three, from the commencement of business and the decision to discharge
Fluke was made probably 3 or 4 weeks prior to the date of his actual termination His dismissal
was again discussed at the meeting of June 17. Barletta admitted he never made any com-
plaints to Fluke concerning his work and that he received a wage increase and a bonus. He
also conceded that he did not give Fluke any advance notice or warning that he was scheduled
to be terminated. Barletta said the Union was not discussed at any of the weekly meetings
and it was "just recently . . probably the last few weeks" that he talked to Monahan on the
subject of unions. When specifically asked whether he informed Monahan of organizational
activities about 1 or 2 weeks after Fluke's discharge, Barletta answered, "I may have, but
f don't remember "
Fluke admitted he had a black eye for several days in the early part of his employment.
However, he specifically denied engaging in the acts and conduct outlined by Monahan.
C. Events subsequent to June 19; findings thereon
1 Interrogation of employees concerning their membership in the Union
A day or so following Fluke's discharge, which was well known to the store personnel,
Albert N. Pompa, manager of the meat department, talked to some of the employees therein
concerning the Union. Thus, Clara Franks stated that Pompa took her into the cooler (all
except one of the women were questioned in the cooler) and asked her if she had signed a union
card and when she admitted she had, he replied, "A union would be no good in the store."
Franks told him she joined because she was dissatisfied with the long hours on Saturday and
her pay. Pompa explained the Union would want certain hours which would probably differ
with those desired by the store and it would work a hardship on everyone He further stated
that if the Union came in the clerks would make about $40 per week, they were then getting
$35, but if they stayed out of the Union they would receive about $45 in 6 months' time
Virginia Tinsley said that Pompa asked her if she had signed a card for the Union. Although
Tinsley had signed a card on June 18, she told Pompa she had not done so, whereupon he
stated the Union "wasn't good for us " He also told her that Franks had signed up but was
going to reject it.
QUAKER MARKETS, INC., THREE 1309
Janet Reifsteck was asked by Pompa whether she had joined the Union and when she twice
assured him she had not joined he said , " All right " That afternoon Barletta also put the
same question to her and she gave him the same answer.
Georgetta Swope stated that while standing at the meat counter , Pompa inquired if she had
joined and if Fluke had requested her to do so . She admitted she had joined , but not at Fluke's
solicitation Pompa declared the store would run better without a union and if it came in the
employees might earn as high as $ 45 per week but they would have to work split shifts and
"so forth " He also told her the employees "would make more money . if we didn ' t join"
the Union . The same day Barletta asked her if she had joined the Union and she replied in
the negative Barletta explained that "the store would run better and they would be treated
better without the union "
As appears above Barletta testified that the only occasions he talked to the married women
about the Union was when they informed him of their membership therein and he advised
them to discuss the matter with their husbands He admitted that one time he asked the em-
ployees if they had joined the Union.
Pompa admitted that he questioned the employees concerning their membership in the
Union in the manner described above In this connection he further testified that he told the
individuals of the fine treatment and pay increases he had received from the Barlettas, who
would do the same thing for all the store employees Pompa, on cross - examination , could not
remember the details of his conversations with the particular employees He further asserted
that he talked to the workers simply as an employee.
Front the foregoing testimony the undersigned has no difficulty in finding that Barletta and
Pompa unlawfully interrogated the employees in regard to their union membership The
undersigned also accepts and credits the testimony of Franks and Swope and finds that Pompa,
in substance , warned them that it was not necessary to have the Union at the store and that
pay increases would be forthcoming if they refrained from becoming members thereof The
undersigned further finds that Barletta told Swope the Union was not needed at the store and
the employees would receive better treatment without it
The next question to be determined is whether Pompa was employed in a supervisory
capacity as urged by the General Counsel , or was simply an employee as contended by the
Companies.
Pompa testified he had been employed by the Companies for about 4Z years and was manager
of the meat department at Quaker , Two, before his transfer , in the same capacity, to Quaker,
Three. Pompa was in complete charge of the department and ordered all meats through
Barletta Grocery . He was under the supervision of Monahan and to a limited extent received
suggestions from the store manager . When the store opened there were about 12 employees
in his department and in June there were about 10, consisting of Pompa, 2 butchers ( 1 part-
time), and 7 clerks Pompa trained the clerks , all of whom were new employees , at Quaker,
Two, while the full-time butcher had previously worked under him at that store Pompa was
paid $90 per week, the part -time butcher $ 1 35 per hour , and the clerks $ 35 per week
Lingenfelter was paid $95 per week. Pompa said he exercised immediate supervision over
these employees , that he issued orders and instructions to them concerning their duties and
made up the work schedule He further stated that he cut meats and checked on the cleanli-
ness of his department . He asserted he had no authority to hire or discharge employees,
nor did he made any recommendations in these respects . Pompa could not recall the names
of employees laid off in his department , nor the dates , and stated that such action was taken
by Monahan , without prior consultation with him
In substance , Franks, Swope , and Reifsteck testified they were trained by Pompa, that he
alone issued orders and instructions to them, made up their work schedule, granted them
time off, fixed their vacation period, and supervised their duties in the proper wrapping,
tagging, and displaying of meats
Monahan stated that Pompa directed the work of "his immediate employees" and was sub-
ject to the general supervision of the store manager
The undersigned finds that Pompa was a supervisory employee as defined in the Act The
witness uniformly testified that Pompa trained the employees , issued orders to them, made up
their work schedules , granted them time off, fixed vacations, and generally supervised the
cutting, wrapping , and displaying of meats The undersigned concludes that Pompa had full
authority to responsibly direct the work of the employees under him and therefore was at all
times material a supervisory employee within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act (The
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company , 102 NLRB 1564 , Safeway Stores , Inc., 103 NLRB
1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
758) The fact that Pompa may have performed some duties of a butcher and that the em-
ployees, as they gained experience , may not have required strict supervision in all their
work , does not detract from or decrease his exclusive authority and responsibility for the
operation of the meat department and the direction of the employees therein.
As stated above , the record fully establishes interrogation of the employees by both Barletta
and Pompa , which acts were not limited to a bare inquiry concerning the membership or
nonmembership of the employees in the Union . The credible evidence discloses that the
employees were warned the Union was not necessary for them and that they would receive
benefits in the nature of pay increases if they refrained from becoming or remaining mem-
bers thereof. Under the circumstances the interrogation was plainly coercive and in clear
violation of the rights guaranteed the employees under Section 7 of the Act. (See Syracuse
Color Press , Inc., 103 NLRB 377). By such conduct the Companies engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. The pay increases
Monahan admitted that about July 2, he sent letters to practically all of the employees at
Quaker, Three, notifying them that their wages were being increased $ 5 per week , effective
the payroll period beginning July 4. He stated that he and officials of the Companies decided
to grant the increases at the weekly meeting held on July 1, and for the first time the em-
ployees were notified of pay increases in writing . Monahan could not remember whether
increases were granted to employees at other stores. Gatsche said he understood all of the
employees at Quaker , Three , received a wage increase and that he had been promised a
raise about 1 month after the store opened . Reifsteck , Swope , and Franks likewise testified
they received the increase , but denied they had ever been promised a raise , other than those
made by Barletta and Pompa as related above.
Having found that Barletta and Pompa interrogated the employees in regard to their union
membership and having found that they promised pay increases to the employees if they would
refrain from joining the Union , the undersigned further finds that the general wage increase,
coming shortly after the open threats and promises , was clearly motivated by a desire to
discourage and prevent membership in the Union, and thereby constituted a violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3 Alleged surviellance, the swimming party
Purcell stated the Union scheduled a meeting about 1 week after Fluke's discharge, which
was to be held at a nearby firehouse after store hours , about 9 o'clock in the evening Ad-
vance notice of the meeting was given tounion members Purcell testified that about 6 o'clock
the same evening Pompa asked him to attend a swimming party the employees were having
that night . Swope said that Pompa announced there would be a swimming party that night
and when she asked him if she had to attend he informed her "it would be to my advantage"
to do so. Franks stated that Pompa asked her if she was going to the party and when she
told him she was not , "he didn't like it very well " None of the foregoing individuals attended
the swimming party.
'Pompa said the party was arranged by the employees and that he was invited to attend the
same
Purcell testified he went to the union meeting which was held on the second floor of the
firehouse and while standing by the window he saw Pompa drive up in his car , stop for a few
seconds, look toward the building , and then drive off Pompa could not recall being at the
firehouse on this occasion.
Granting that Pompa drove to the firehouse and stopped for a few seconds as related by
Purcell, this single incident is wholly inadequate to support a finding of surveillance
Much time was devoted at the hearing to the swimming party and the policy of the Com-
panies with respect to picnics and parties generally . While the circumstances under which
the swimming party were arranged and announced may create the suspicion that it was
planned to thereby interfere with the union meeting or as an inducement to the employees to
refrain from attending the meeting , nevertheless the undersigned finds that the evidence on
the whole is insufficient to warrant a finding that responsible officials of the Companies
actively promoted the affair.
QUAKER MARKETS, INC., THREE 1311
4. Interrogation of Purcell by Tony Maruka
Purcell stated a day or so after the above-mentioned meeting Maruka remarked that the
Union "didn't have a very good turnout." Purcell denied this and said there were 12 or 13
employees present Maruka thereupon asked the names of those attending, which Purcell
refused to reveal Purcell testified that Maruka was acting manager of the store after
Edmundson left and prior to Lingenfelter' s appointment . Blackburn said he treated Maruka
the same as he would Barletta and when Maruka told him and the other stockboys to perform
certain work they complied with his instructions. In brief, Reifsteck, Swope, and Franks said
they looked upon Maruka as manager of the store in the above interval.
Barletta stated that Maruka, married to a niece of one of his brothers, was employed to do
mechanical work for the contractors building the store and remained on as an employee after
the store opened. He denied that he was ever employed as manager or in a supervisory
capacity.
Monahan said that Maruka was hired by Joseph Barletta, who fixed his salary at $ 65 per
week. He further stated that Maruka did odd jobs at the store and was never employed in a
managerial or supervisory capacity. Monahan described Maruka as an "uncouth, no-good,
ignorant individual, and if I would have had anything to do with it, I would have fired him a
long time before he left the company, but he was a relative of the Barletta family, and I
hesitated to do so." Monahan added that Maruka was a "headache" and a "very loud indi-
vidual " He admitted that he never discharged Maruka and that he remained at the store
until about 3 months before this hearing, when he left because of illness
Maruka did not testify.
The undersigned finds that Maruka interrogated Purcell as related above, so the only
issue involved is whether Maruka was employed in a managerial or supervisory position as
urged by the General Counsel, or was simply an employee as contended by the Companies.
Although the evidence fails to establish that Maruka had been designated manager, or acting
manager, during the period in question, the undersigned has no doubt that he enjoyed a special
status far different from and superior to the rank-and-file employees at the store. Thus, he
was hired directly by the president of the Companies, who fixed his compensation at $ 65 per
week, obviously without relation to his qualifications or duties Again, while Monahan un-
mistakably expressed his d i s 1 i k e for Maruka and denounced him in bitter terms, still he
failed to discharge him as anundesirable employee because of his relationship to the Barlettas.
Monahan's position and attitude toward Maruka contrasts sharplywith his summary dismissal
of Eyster and Fluke, especially when it is considered that during the period of Maruka's
employment the store was allegedly operating at a loss, that clerk hiring was a serious
problem, and that steps were 'being constantly taken to reduce the working staff Since it is
obvious Monahan could not fire Maruka, nor even control him, it follows that he was no ordi-
nary employee but an individual closely associated with management In view of Monahan's
characterization of Maruka, and the testimony of the above witnesses, the undersigned is of
the opinion that Maruka created the impression he was employed in a managerial capacity,
that he was held out as such and, therefore, the employees had just cause to believe that he
was employed in this capacity. Accordingly, the Companies are responsible for the unlawful
statements made by him to Purcell The undersigned so finds Bibb Manufacturing Company,
82 NLRB 338, 346, 376, enforced as modified 188 F. 2d 825 (C. A. 5), Tygart Sportswear
Company and McLaren Sportswear Corp., 77 NLRB 613, 619, 623.
Concluding Findings
The remaining issues to be determined are (1) whether Fluke was unlawfully discharged
and (2) whether the Companies prior to and about that time interfered with, restrained, and
coerced the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under the Act
It is undisputed that in April or early May, Fluke brought up the subject of unionization
with the employees and, on June 15, discussed organizational methods with one of the Union's
representatives, became a member thereof, and secured membership application cards.
Thereafter, and until June 19, he contacted many employees and was successful in signing
up about 10 workers. The testimony of Eyster, Blackburn, Gatsche, Woomer, and Purcell
supports the conclusion that Fluke was the leader and outstanding proponent of the Union.
Meantime, in May, Barletta inquired of Eyster if anyone had approached him about a union
and he admitted that a representative of the United Mine Workers had talked to him and that
1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees had discussed organization under the United Mine Workers as well as the AFL
In response to Barletta's further inquiry, Eyster said he had not joined any union, whereupon
Barletta terminated the conversation with the statement that the United Mine Workers could
not do much for the employees. It is conceded that approximately 1 week later Monahan dis-
charged Eyster because of a reduction-in-force, and immediately filled his vacancy with a
college student who had worked temporarily at another store Barletta admitted he talked to
Eyster one time, when the latter reported the employees had threatened to throw him out
for loafing, but he could not remember any discussion on the subject of unions. Barletta's'
lack of recollection and his version of the incident is anything but impressive It also strikes
the undersigned that he was more interested in laying some foundation to justify Eyster's
sudden and suspicious discharge rather than meeting Eyster's assertions in a clear and
straightforward manner. The undersigned therefore accepts Eyster's testimony and finds
that Barletta interrogated him concerning union activities at the store.
Blackburn testified that Barletta asked Blackburn, Gatsche, and Yeckley if they had signed
union cards and when admitted they had done so, he said the Union could not do much for
them at the store He also advised them to discuss their union membership with their
parents. Blackburn fixed the date of this conversation as a couple of days after he had signed
a union card, which he did on June 15. Gatsche's testimony is to the same effect except he
made no mention of Barletta's statement that the Union could not accomplish much for the
employees and placed the conversation as occurring on June 19, after Fluke had been dis-
charged. Barletta said the boys told him they had joined the Union and he simply suggested
that they take it up with their parents Under the circumstances the undersigned has no
difficulty in finding that Barletta interrogated the boys concerning their membership in the
Union and that they did not volunteer this information to him There is, of course, a dis-
crepancy as to the date this conversation took place However, the time element is not the
crux of this incident, for assuming the act took place as stated by Gatsche, the plain, strong
inference is that Barletta was aware of the reason for Fluke's discharge and was seeking to
learn the strength of the Union as well as the identity of employees who might have joined
While 'both Blackburn and Gatsche testified in an honest and forthright manner, the under-
signed is of the opinion that the interrogation occurred in the manner and at the time stated
by Blackburn, for it is entirely reasonable and consistent with the pattern adopted by offi-
cials of the Companies, and that Gatsche was mistaken in regard to the time factor. The
undersigned so finds
Woomer signed a union card on June 18, and early the same afternoon Barletta asked her
if Fluke had obtained her signature, which she admitted was true While Woomer worked
June 19, she could not recall whether that was the day Fluke was discharged, but in any event
she changed her previous testimony as to the time of the conversation by stating Barletta
questioned her after this action Although Barletta stated Woomer informed him she had
joined the Union and he merely made a casual reply, the undersigned finds that he questioned
Woomer in the manner stated by her. Theundersigned is also of the opinion that the conversa-
tion took place on the date initially fixed by Woomer Again, granting it occurred immediately
following Fluke's discharge, the plain import from the question propounded to her warrants
fully the conclusion that Barletta had prior knowledgeof Fluke's union activity and was merely
seeking confirmation or verification of that fact.
Having found that Fluke was the leader of the union movement and that the Companies,
through Barletta, had knowledge of his activities, the remaining question to be resolved is
whether he was discharged because of these activities it is admitted that Fluke was one of
four employees who had received a raise prior to that time; that he had also been given a
small bonus and that he was dismissed on June 19, without prior notice or warning.
As appears above, supra, Monahan detailed many complaints and objections regarding
Fluke's work and conduct, which were specifically denied by Fluke. Although Monahan claimed
these derelictions were prevalent throughout almost the entire period of Fluke's employment,
that he personally witnessed many of these acts and that he was criticized at the weekly
meetings for retaining Fluke, yet, admittedly, he never warned or cautioned Fluke, nor did
he make any effort to discharge him. All Monahan did was to speak to Edmundson, who in turn
spoke to Monahan about Fluke's work and conduct Up to this point Monahan's testimony,
irrespective of any denial, is neither convincing nor persuasive for it is difficult to believe
that any employer would permit an employee to perform in the manner attributed to Fluke,
and over such a period of time, without discharging him or even reprimanding him. More-
over, the undersigned is convinced that Monahan would not have tolerated any such conduct on
QUAKER MARKETS, INC., THREE 1313
the part of Fluke Monahan ' s demeanor and attitude clearly impressed the undersigned that
he was well satisfied with the position of authority he held over the employees and that he
would not hesitate to exercise this power if he deemed it at all necessary in the performance
of his duties The summary dismissal and replacement of Eyster demonstrates that fact and
his caustic characterization of Maruka was, no doubt , engendered by frustration of his desire
to terminate his special employee status at the store . But the evidence does not rest at that
point Monahan overlooks the fact that Edmundson was terminated in the first week of May
and that Barletta immediately assumed the duties of store manager , which he exercised
through the remainder of Fluke's term of employment . Monahan asserted that Barletta com-
plained to him about Fluke's work .- Barletta not only failed to corroborate this assertion but
made no mention whatever of any complaints against Fluke ' s work and further conceded
that at no time did he ever warn Fluke that he was performing his duties in an unsatisfactory
manner Barletta was Fluke ' s immediate supervisor and was certainly in a better position
than Monahan to observe his work and conduct Again , Monahan stated that in selecting em-
ployees for discharge it was customary to obtain recommendations from the manager, which
obviously was not done in Fluke's case Monahan ' s testimony that Fluke was selected for dis-
charge, in an economy move, because he was not a satisfactory employee is plainly refuted
by the testimony of Flukeand Barletta . The undersigned therefore rejects Monahan ' s testimony
and, on the basis of the evidence given by Fluke and Barletta , finds that Fluke was discharged
under the circumstances related by Fluke.
In an attempt to support his contention that he did not inform Fluke he was being discharged
because of his attempt to organize the store, Monahan further declared that he first learned
of union activity among the employees from Barletta , about 1 week after Fluke ' s dismissal.
When questioned along this line Barletta said he first discussed the Union with Monahan
"probably the last few weeks " preceding this hearing Later , when reminded of Monahan's
testimony , he stated he may have talked to him at that time but he did not remember doing
so. The undersigned firmly believes that Monahan was fully cognizant of organizational activ-
ities among the employees , as well as Fluke ' s position in the movement , long prior to June
19, but assuming the contrary , still the matter is not of controlling importance for it has
been found that Barletta had timely notice and knowledge of these facts
In view of the findings concerning the conduct of the Companies both before and after
June 19, and upon consideration of all the evidence , the undersigned finds that Fluke was
discharged because of his union membership and activities on its behalf and that such dis-
charge was in clear violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Respondents described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the under-
signed will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take the following affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act- (1) Offer to Roy O. Fluke immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position,4 without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges; (2) make whole Roy O. Fluke for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the Respondents' unlawful discharge, by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages, from the date of
discharge to the date of the Respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
said period 5 (3) the Respondents shall upon request make available to the Board payroll and
other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay, which shall be computed
in accordance with the Board's customary formula, 6 and (4) that the Respondents be ordered
4 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 NLRB
627.
SCrossett Lumber Conipany, 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corp. v. N. L R. B , 311 U. S 7.
6F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
339676 0 - 55 - 84
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing their em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act.
The General Counsel has given no indication of his position as to what store or stores
appropriate notice or notices should be posted . In view of the findings herein with respect to
the unified manner in which the Respondents conduct their business and the nature of the
unfair labor practices , the undersigned feels there may be some danger that they will engage
in like conduct at their other stores, in the event their employees should attempt to organize,
nevertheless, upon consideration of the entire record , the undersigned is of the opinion that
the policies of the Act will be effectuated by limiting the posting of notices to the store where
the Respondents engaged in the unfair labor practices , as found herein . It is so recommended.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Roy O. Fluke the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondents have not engaged in any acts of surveillance as alleged in the com-
plaint.
Recommendations omitted from publication.]
GONG BELL MANUFACTURING CO. and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No.
1-RC-3527. June 11, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 23, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certifi-
cation upon consent election, an election was conducted under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
First Region among the production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's East Hampton, Connecticut, plant. Upon the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots. The tally showed that there were 172 ballots cast, of
which 58 were for the Petitioner, 106 against the Petitioner,
7 ballots challenged, and 1 ballot void. On March 5, 1954, the
Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. After an
investigation, the Regional Director, on April 6, 1954, issued
and duly served upon the parties his report on objections,
attached hereto. The Regional Director found in his report that
the Petitioner's objections lacked merit and recommendedthat
they be dismissed. On April 15, 1954, the Petitioner filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objec-
tions.
108 NLRB No. 181.