R. H. Osbrink Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 7, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 16 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sustained by credible evidence . Accordingly , the undersigned recommends that the amended
complaint , in its entirety , be dismissed.
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 Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, at its Dallas , Texas , plant, is engaged
in, and at all times material herein has been engaged in, commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the amended complaint that Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act,
have not been sustained.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
R. H. OSBRINK , M. E. OSBRINK AND BERTON W. BEALS AS
TRUSTEE, CO - PARTNERS , DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF R. H. OSBRINK MANUFAC-
TURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA , C.I.O. (UAW-CIO)
R. H. OSBRINK , M. E. OSBRINK AND BERTON W. BEALS AS
TRUSTEE, CO - PARTNERS , DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF R. H. OSBRINK MANUFAC-
TURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA , G.I.O. (UAW-CIO ), Peti-
tioner . Cases Nos. 21-CA-1319 and 21-RC-2262 . July 7,
1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On April 13 , 1953 , the Board issued a Decision and Order in
the above - entitled proceeding .' Thereafter , on April 23, 1953,
the Respondent filed a "Motion for Reconsideration , Motion
for Rehearing , and Motion to Dismiss ." The General Counsel
and the Union filed memoranda in opposition to the Respond-
ent's motion . The Respondent filed a reply to these memo-
randa. Having duly considered the matter, the Board finds as
follows:
The Respondent alleges four grounds in support of its motion.
They are:
(1) The charging labor organization was never in full com-
pliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
(2) The complaint is barred by the statute of limitations
11M NLRB 42
106 NLRB No 7
R H. OSBRINK MANUFACTURING COMPANY 17
insofar as it alleges independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
(3) The findings of the Board are not supported by probative
evidence on the record considered as a whole.
(4) The cease-and-desist order is too broad.
A. The alleged failure to comply with Section 9 ( f), (g),
and (h) of the Act
The unfair labor practice charges in this case were filed by
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, CIO (UAW-CIO), Region
6. Throughout the proceedings , whenever reference was made
to the charging Union, the designation of that organization
followed the description in the charges. The Respondent con-
tends that "Region 6" is a separate labor organization within
the meaning of the Act, that the Board adopted such a finding
by the Trial Examiner to which no exceptions were filed, that
"Region 6" has not complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of
the Act, and that therefore the entire complaint must be dis-
missed. The General Counsel and the Charging Union, UAW-CIO,
argue in opposition that "Region 6" is not a separate labor
organization , but a geographical designation employed as a
convenient means of carrying on the internal administrative
affairs of the UAW-CIO; and that, in any event, "Region 6" is
in compliance.
The Board does not agree with the Respondent that it made
a finding that "Region 6" is a separate labor organization. The
Board merely found that the Charging Union, as described, was
a labor organization . It did not decide that "Region 6" apart
from its international is a labor organization . In fact, neither
the General Counsel nor the Board considered that "Region 6"
was a labor organization . For that reason , neither required
"Region 6" to show compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h)
of the Act. In view of the Respondent's motion, however, the
Board has made a more detailed investigation of the status of
"Region 6."
According to the UAW-CIO constitution, each region repre-
sents a geographical area from which local unions within the
area select an international executive board member, who is
also the regional director for that region. "Region 6" covers
the States of Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada,
Utah, and Arizona.
The regional director occupies an office created by the
constitution. His salary is fixed by the constitution. Under the
general direction of the international president , he exercises
direct supervision over all organizational activities within his
region . He "examine(s) all contracts negotiated within his
region before they are signed and submit ( s) them to the Inter-
national Executive Board with his recommendation, negotiate(s)
disputes with the bargaining committees wherever possible,
act(s ) to obtain favorable legislation for labor and work(s) for
the general welfare of the membership." (Article 13, sec. 28.)
He submits quarterly reports of organizational activity within
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his region to the international president and to the executive
board.
No local union officer, international officer , or international
representative has the authority to negotiate the terms of a
contract without first obtaining the approval of the local union.
Proposed contracts must also be approved by the local union
membership . After such approval , the contract is referred to
the regional director for his recommendation to the inter-
national executive board for its approval or rejection . Strike
action voted by a local union is also submitted to the regional
director for forwarding to the executive board with his recom-
mendation.
The regional director is the only elected officer in the region.
The regions do not have separate charters or separate funds.
The regional director of "Region 6" has filed the non-Com-
munist affidavit required by Section 9 (h) of the Act in his
capacity as member of the international executive board.
Upon these facts , the Board concludes that "Region 6" is
not a separate labor organization , but only an administrative
arm or subdivision of the UAW- CIO and therefore was not
required to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9
(f), (g), and (h) of the Act.' In order to avoid any further
ambiguity we shall amend the Board ' s Decision and Order to
delete the words "Region 6 " wherever they appear in such
Decision and Order.
B. The statute of limitations
The Respondent contends that the complaint is barred by the
statute of limitations insofar as it alleges independent viola-
tions of Section 8 (a) (1). This argument was considered and
rejected in the Board ' s Decision and Order . We adhere to the
rationale of the Cathey Lumber case . ' Moreover , certain of
the statements found to have violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act were made in connection with , and were related to, the
discriminatory discharge of LeFlore , who was alleged in the
charge to have been discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3 ) of the Act . Even under the Respondent ' s interpretation
of Section 10 (b), such findings were therefore lawfully made.
C. The findings of the Board
The Respondent also contends that the findings of the Board
are not supported by probative evidence on the record con-
sidered as a whole. We reject this contention upon the basis of
2 Claycraft Company v . United Mine Workers , 32 LRRM 2124; Newport News Children's
Dress Company. 89 NLRB 442; Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Company, 82 NLRB 932.
Compare United Tanners , Inc , 103 NLRB 760; Franklin Tanning Company, 104 NLRB 831
SCathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157, enfd . 185 F. 2d 1021 (C.A. 5), set aside on
another ground , 189 F. 2d 428 (C A. 5).
HARRIS LANGENBERG IIAT COMPANY 19
the discussion and findings of the Trial Examiner which the
Board has adopted."
D. The scope of the Board ' s order
The Respondent contends that the violations found do not
justify the scope of the Board ' s order . In view of the Respond-
ent's discriminatory discharge of two employees , we consider
that the broad cease-and - desist order is necessary in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act.5
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent's "Motion for
Reconsideration , Motion for Rehearing , and Motion to Dismiss"
be, and it hereby is, denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Decision and Order is sued
herein be , and it hereby is, amended by deleting therefrom the
phrase "Region 6" wherever it appears in said Decision and
Order , and that the Decision and Order , as printed , shall appear
as hereby amended.
4In this part of its argument , the Respondent contends that there is no evidence to support
the Trial Examiner 's finding that Wally Watkins was a supervisor . However, R . H. Osbrink
included Watkins ' name in a list of top management personnel.
5 Southeastern Pipe Line Company, 104 NLRB 575, and cases cited therein.
HARRIS LANGENBERG HAT COMPANY and UNITED HAT-
TERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL, Petitioner . Case No . 14-RC-2222. July 7, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry G.
Carlson, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed . The Employer ' s request for oral argument is hereby
denied as the record and briefs , in our opinion , adequately set
forth the issues and positions of the parties.
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 Houston, Murdock, and
Styles] .
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
322615 0 - 54 - 3