S. S. Kresge Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1966

162 N.L.R.B. 498 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to join and support , or refrain from joining or sup-
porting, any union except that the right not to join a union may be affected by a
valid contract requiring membership in a union as a condition of employment.
PIONEER LUMBER TREATING CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above -named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 327
Logan Building , 500 Union Street , Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 583-4583.
K-Mart, a Division of S. S. Kresge Company; Gallenkamp Stores
Co.; Mercury Distributing Company; Acme Quality Paints;
F & G Merchandising ; Hollywood Hat Co.; and Besco Enter-
prises, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union Local #770, Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-6937. De-
cember 30, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 17, 1966, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, exceptions and supporting briefs were
filed by the Respondent K-Mart, a Division of S. S. Kresge Com-
pany (hereinafter called K-Mart) ; by the Respondents Gallenkamp
Stores Co., Mercury Distributing Company, Acme Quality Paints,
and F & G Merchandising; and by the Respondent Hollywood
Hat Co.
.Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its pow-
ers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman
McCulloch and Members Fanning and Zagoria].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision , the exceptions and supporting briefs, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
162 NLRB No. 41.
K-MART, A DIV. OF S. S. KRESGE 499
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following addi-
tions and modifications.'
The Respondents assert that certain alleged procedural irregulari-
ties attributed to the Board and the Charging Party justify the
refusal to bargain. Thus, the Respondents' exceptions contend, inter
alia, (1) that the unit found appropriate by the Board in Case 21-
RC-9309,2 the underlying representation case, was erroneous as it
(a) included an employer, Besco Enterprises, Inc., hereinafter called
Besco, which had ceased doing business at the herein involved
Commerce store, and (b) failed to include an employer, Zale Jewelry,
hereinafter called Zale, stated to be an indispensable party; (2) that
the Charging Party's demand for recognition and bargaining, the
amended charge, and the complaint were defective because they
named Besco as a joint employer although Besco had ceased doing
business at the store; and (3) that the Charging Party's demand for
recognition was improper as it did not demand that K-Mart and its
licensees bargain jointly, but rather gave the impression that K-
Mart was to bargain alone for all the joint employers.
As to (1), it appears that at some time before the election in Case
21-RC-9309, held on April 7, 1965, Besco ceased doing business at
the Commerce store, and that at some time between the election and
the Board's certification on September 9, 1965, Zale commenced oper-
ations at the store. However, counsel for K-Mart admitted at the
instant hearing that no party formally advised the Board of these
changes, nor does it appear that the Charging Party was advised
that Zale had commenced operations. Moreover, neither K-Mart nor
the licensees filed a motion to clarify the Board's certification.3 Fur-
ther, it does not appear that any employee of Zale or Besco voted in
the election, and it is not so contended by the Respondents. That Zale
commenced operations before the certification is of no moment, as the
'The Respondents contend that in overruling certain objections to the election in
K-Mart, a Dsvisson of S. S. Kresge Company, Case 21-RC-9309 , the representation case
underlying the instant proceeding , the Regional Director made ex parte credibility
resolutions . The Respondents argue that the Board erred in denying their requests for re-
view of the Regional Director 's decision , and that the Board should have directed a hear-
ing to resolve what are alleged to be issues of fact raised by conflicting statements from
Petitioner and Employer witnesses.
In determining upon the requests for review whether the Employers ' objections raised
substantial and material issues of fact, the Board in accordance with its usual practice
viewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the Employer -objectors and did not rely
on any "credibility resolutions ." Thus, the Board assumed the accuracy of the allegations
of objectionable conduct as reported by the Employers ' witnesses and concluded that this
conduct, if it happened as alleged , would be insufficient to warrant setting aside the elec-
tion . Accordingly , the Board decided that a hearing was not necessary and that the objec-
tions were properly overruled . We here reaffirm the aforesaid ruling.
2 The appropriate unit , insofar as here relevant , included , "employees employed at
K-Mart's Commerce , California , store, including . . . employees of licensees . . . .
8 Neither the unit description in the Regional Director 's Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion nor the Board's certification specifically mentions licensees by name.
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certification established the majority status of the Union at the time
of the election. Finally, we note that the Respondents, in support of
their contention that Zale is an indispensable party, did not intro-
duce any evidence that Zale is, in fact, a joint employer of its employ-
ees with K-Mart, or that it is appropriately in the certified unit.4 It
is no substitute for such evidence simply to say without more, as the
Respondents have said, that Zale is an "indispensable party."
Of course, we are not passing here on whether Zale's employees are
a part of the unit, as this depends, at least in part, on the terms of
the license agreement between Zale and K-Mart, which was not intro-
duced into evidence. All we hold here is that on the basis of the rec-
ord before us, and as Zale was not made a party to this proceeding, no
bargaining order can be issued against Zale in this proceeding.
As to (2), we note again the admission that the Board had no for-
mal notice from the Respondents that Besco had ceased operations.
Nor does it appear that the Charging Party was so notified until
after it had made its demand upon Besco. Further, even though the
charge and complaint named Besco, this was cured when the General
Counsel stated at the hearing that no bargaining order was being
sought with respect to Besco, and the inclusion of Besco's name in
any event is harmless since Besco is not made subject to the bargain-
ing order we enter below.5
As to (3), the record shows that the Charging Party made a writ-
ten demand for bargaining upon K-Mart by letter dated Septem-
ber 21, 1965, and upon each of the licensees, by letters dated Octo-
ber 18, 1965. These letters specifically mentioned the certification
issued by the Board, noted that this certification was for "the employ-
ees in the K-Mart Store," and then requested "discussions" leading
to a collective-bargaining agreement. Each licensee replied only that
it was not "obligated" to comply with the request. K-Mart replied by
letter dated September 29, 1965, which stated, inter alia, that it was
"inappropriate." The Charging Party then sent K-Mart another
letter dated October 19, 1965, clarifying its previous demand so as
"to confirm the fact that the Union's request to bargain was . . . in
the unit found appropriate by the Board." K-Mart did not respond
to this October 19 letter. We note that the demands of the Charging
Party contain nothing that could have misled the Respondents into
believing that the Charging Party was requesting separate bargain-
* We do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding that Zale was a successor to Besco, as
there was no evidence introduced on this point. However, we do not find this error by the
Trial Examiner to be material as his Recommended Order, which we adopt, does not re-
quire Zale to bargain.
H We note that the Trial Examiner inadvertently included Besco employees in the descrip-
tion of the unit in his "Conclusions of Law." We correct this error . We further modify the
Trial Examiner 's unit description by deleting the names "Gallenkamp , Mercury, Acme,
F & G, Hollywood," in order to conform the unit description to that found appropriate in
the representation case.
K-MART, A DIV. OF S. S. KRESGE 501
ing alone for each employer. The Charging Party's demand letters,
particularly in light of their express mention of the outstanding
Board certification, could only be interpreted as a request for bar-
gaining on a joint employer basis. Accordingly, we do not agree with
the contention of K-Mart's counsel at the hearing that the only
appropriate demand would be "a joint letter to all the Employers
advising them that they constitute one unit and [that the Union was]
... going to bargain with them together."
We conclude that the Respondents' claims of procedural irregu-
larities are without substance, and that the Respondents, by refusing
to bargain, violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
hereinafter the Act, was heard before Trial Examiner William E. Spencer in Los
Angeles, California , on March 22, 1966 , pursuant to due notice . The complaint,
issued December 10, 1965, was based on an original and an amended charge filed
by the Union herein on October 5, and November 5, 1965 , respectively, and alleged
in substance that the Respondents , and each of them , violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5 ) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union as the duly certified
bargaining representative of their employees in an approprate unit. Respondents'
several defenses , including its allegation of an erroneous certification by the Board,
incorporated in their duly filed answers , will be discussed hereinafter.
Upon the entire record in the case and consideration of briefs filed with me by
the General Counsel and Respondents K-Mart, Hollywood , Gallenkamp , Mercury,
Acme, and F & G, respectively , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
K-Mart, a division of S. S . Kresge Company, herein called K-Mart , owns and
manages retail department stores including a store in the city of Commerce, Cali-
fornia, which is the only store involved in this proceeding.
Gallenkamp Stores Co., herein called Gallenkamp , pursuant to a lease agreement
with K-Mart, sells shoes at the Commerce store.
Mercury Distributing Company, herein called Mercury, pursuant to a lease
agreement with K-Mart , sells apparel at the Commerce store.
Acme Quality Paints, herein called Acme , pursuant to a lease agreement with
K-Mart , sells household items at the Commerce store.
F & G Merchandising , herein called F & G, pursuant to a lease agreement with
K-Mart , sells automobile accessories and services automobiles at the Commerce
store.
Hollywood Hat Co., herein called Hollywood , pursuant to a lease agreement
with K-Mart , sells hats at the Commerce store.
Besco Enterprises, Inc., herein called Besco , prior to December 8, 1964, and
until about March 30 , 1965, pursuant to a lease agreement with K-Mart, sold
jewelry and cameras at the Commerce store.
Zale Jewelry Service, Inc., d/b/a Zale Jewelry , herein called Zale, pursuant to a
lease agreement with K-Mart, sells jewelry and cameras at the Commerce store.
Zale operates the same department operated by Besco under the same arrange-
ments with K-Mart which Besco had with K-Mart.
K-Mart and its licensees above -named annually make retail sales at the Com-
merce store aggregating in excess of $500 ,000 in value and annually cause to be
transported to the Commerce store directly from points located outside the State
of California goods valued in excess of $50,000.
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Union Local 770, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, hereinafter the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
Whether matters fully litigated in a representation proceeding may be relitigated
before a Trial Examiner in a complaint proceeding in which a refusal to bargain,
predicated upon the Board's certification of representatives, is alleged; whether the
bargaining demand not made on one of the existing joint employers, and the com-
plaint which does not name as a respondent one of the existing joint employers,
are defective to a degree justifying the refusal to bargain of the joint employers
named in the complaint on whom bargaining demands were made.
B. Chronology
On February 24, 1965, the Board's Regional Director issued a Decision and
Direction of Election in Cases 21-RC-9128, 9130, and 9309, in which he found,
inter alia, that Respondent K-Mart, and its licensees Gallenkamp, Mercury, Acme,
F & G, Hollywood, and Besco, were joint employers. Respondents K-Mart, F & G,
and Gallenkamp, respectively filed requests with the Board for a review of the
Regional Director's decision. On March 30, 1965, the Board denied the said
requests on the grounds that "they raised no substantial issues warranting review."
An election was held in the matter on April 7, 1965. There were sufficient chal-
lenged ballots cast to be determinative of the results. Both the Union and Respond-
ent filed objections to the conduct of the election.
On June 30, 1965, the Regional Director issued his Supplemental Decision and
Direction in which he reviewed the objections to the conduct of the election; made
findings and conclusions with respect to the challenged ballots; denied the Union's
objections to the conduct of the election while sustaining certain objections filed by
Respondents; and ordered the election of April 7 set aside.
On July 8, the Union filed with the Board a request for a review of the Regional
Director's report on objections and challenged ballots. Respondents filed objections
to the said request as well as their own requests for review.
On July 20, the Board denied Respondents' request for review of the Regional
Director's action "as raising no substantial issues warranting review;" denied the
Union's request as it related to the Regional Director's report on challenged ballots;
and granted the Union's request for review to the extent of directing its Regional
Director to open and count challenged ballots "in accord with his direction," with
the proviso that if his revised tally of ballots showed that the Union received a
majority of votes cast, the Board would then review his disposition of an issue
raised in the Union's objections.
On July 23, the revised tally of ballots disclosed that a majority of valid votes
were cast for the Union. Pursuant thereto, the Board, on September 9, issued its
Decision on Review and Certification of Representative, overruling its Regional
Director in his order setting aside the election of April 7, 1965, and certifying the
Union as bargaining representative of the employees involved.'
C. The refusal to bargain
By letters dated October 18, addressed to Respondents Gallenkamp, Mercury,
Acme, F & G, Besco, and Hollywood, the Union requested meetings for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining. All these employers, excepting Besco, declined "to
comply with such request or demand." Besco advised that it had discontinued its
operations on March 30 and therefore was not "properly involved in any collective
bargaining agreement for employees at that store." By letter dated September 21,
1965, the Union, by letter, requested K-Mart to meet with it for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and by letter dated September 29, K-Mart refused the request,
stating, inter alia:
It is the position of the S. S. Kresge Company that the unit of employees for
which your Union seeks to act as the collective bargaining representative at our
1 The Board's Decision and Review, dated September 9, contained a full factual state-
ment of the premises on which the Board acted.
K-MART, A DIV. OF S. S. KRESGE 503
Commerce store is inappropriate and that , furthermore , the employees in such
a unit have not, by a free , untrammeled and uncoerced majority selected your
Union as their collective bargaining representative.
On October 19, the Union again addressed K-Mart , this time, through its attorneys,
stating: "So that there is no misunderstanding about the request made by the Union,
this is to confirm the fact that the Union 's request to bargain was a request upon
your client to bargain in the unit found appropriate by the Board."
The unit found appropriate by the Board follows:
All regular fulltime and parttime employees employed at K-Mart's Com-
merce, California store, including selling, nonselling , and office clerical employ-
ees, and employees of licensees , excluding guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
D. Concluding findings
Matters which the Respondents would raise before and relitigate before me are,
with an exception , matters already fully litigated before the Board and matters on
which the Board has rendered its decision . Admittedly, there is no newly discovered
evidence bearing on such matters , or in fact any evidence which the Respondents
would now offer which it has not already been afforded an opportunity in repre-
sentation proceedings to offer before the Board . Respondents argue earnestly that
they were denied due process of law when the Board 's Regional Director over-
ruled certain objections to the election involving a matter of credibility, without
affording Respondents a hearing . Respondents further argue with equal earnestness
that the appropriate unit certified by the Board was erroneous , and because it was
erroneous the Respondents are under no legal duty to recognize and bargain with the
Union as representative of employees in such a unit. The Board may wish to re-
consider its position in the light of these arguments , supported as they are by copi-
ous citations , but these are matters properly addressed to the Board and are not
properly before the Board 's Trial Examiner at this juncture . The Board has long
held, with court approval , that matters fully litigated in representation proceedings
may not be relitigated in a complaint proceeding wherein an employer seeks to jus-
tify its refusal to bargain by attacking the Board 's certification of representatives,
and I adhere, as I must , to Board policy.
Coming now to the Union's demand for bargaining rights, and Respondents'
refusal of such demands, there is some novelty in the situation , and it is a matter
requiring my attention . K-Mart's licensee, Besco , though named in the Board's
Certification of Representative as one of the joint employers, had ceased its opera-
tions months before the certification date and had been succeeded by a new licensee,
Zale. Zale was not named as a Respondent in this proceeding and the Union, though
serving its bargaining demand on Besco at a time when Besco had long ceased its
operations , made no demand on Zale, Besco's successor , individually . Respondents
argue therefrom that the appropriateness of the unit certified by the Board must
fail, that the complaint is defective inasmuch as Zale is not named as one of the
joint employers, and the Union 's demand for bargaining rights was defective because
it made no demand on Zale individually.
I am unable to agree that K-Mart and its licensees were justified in their refusal
to bargain because no individual demand to bargain was made on Zale, successor to
Besco. The unit certified by the Board was all employees at K-Mart's Commerce,
California store, including the employees of all its licensees . It appears that at the
time of the election Besco had no employees . Sometime between the election and
the certification, Zale succeeded to the business formerly conducted by Besco. It is
settled law that one who becomes a successor employer during the period of the
certification is bound by that certification . Zale, as Besco 's successor , was and is
bound . The Union in its bargaining demand of October 19 made it clear that its
demand was based on the "unit found appropriate by the Board." If Respondents
had in any way been misled or confused by the inclusion of Besco instead of its
successor, Zale, as one of the joint employers embraced by the certification, they
could have and should have requested a clarification of the unit by the Board. This
they did not do. Instead of attempting to undermine the unit determined appropriate
by the Board , the Union in its bargaining demands honored the certification to the
letter, even to the extent of serving Besco , instead of its sucessor , Zale, with its
bargaining demand . While perhaps the demand was more properly made on Zale,
the fact that the Union did serve Besco showed clearly that it intended to adhere
to the Board 's certification and intended that employees in the department formerly
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operated by Besco should fall into the appropriate unit. Since Zale is not named
in the complaint as one of the joint employers, no order to bargain will be issued
against Zale, but I do not believe that such a defect in demand and service should
operate to defeat the right of the employees of the joint employers named in the
complaint to be represented in collective bargaining by their chosen and certified
bargaining representative. Had but one of the joint employers refused a proper
bargaining demand, this would not operate to deny bargaining representation to
employees of the other joint employers, or require that bargaining be brought to a
standstill until the erring employer was brought into compliance with the Act. I
shall recommend that an order to bargain be issued against all the joint employers
named in the complaint, excluding Besco.
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. K-Mart, Gallenkamp, Mercury, Acme, F & G, and Hollywood, are, and
Besco was, an Employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All regular full-time and part-time employees employed at K-Mart's Com-
merce, California, store, including selling, nonselling, and office clerical employees,
and employees of K-Mart's licensees, Gallenkamp, Mercury, Acme, F & G, Holly-
wood, and Besco, excluding guards and professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The Union on September 9, 1965, and at all times material herein, was and
now is the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By refusing on about September 29, 1965, and at all times material herein,
to bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive representative of employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit, K-Mart and its licensees Gallenkamp, Mercury,
Acme, F & G, and Hollywood have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
6. By the said refusal to bargain, the aforenamed Respondents interfered with,
restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Respondents K-Mart, Gallen-
kamp, Mercury, Acme, F & G, and Hollywood, their officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all employees in the previously described appropriate unit.
(b) In such manner, or any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining,
or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join
or assist the Union 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 rights 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 designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of employees in the previously described appropriate unit, with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
K-MART, A DIV. OF S. S . KRESGE 505
(b) Post at the K-Mart place of business in Commerce , California, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix ." 2 Copies of the notice , to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondents ' repre-
sentatives , shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by them for a period of 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of this Decision , what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.3
2 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
Upon request WE WILL bargain collectively with Retail Clerks Union Local
770, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all our employees in the unit described below, 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 agree-
ment . The bargaining unit is:
All regular full-time and part-time employees employed at K-Mart's Com-
merce, California , store , including selling , nonselling , and office clerical
employees , and employees of licensees, excluding guards, professional
employees , and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become , remain, or refrain from becoming mem-
bers of the above-named Union or any other labor organization except to the extent
this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act .
K-MART, A DIVISION OF S. S . KRESGE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
GALLENKAMP STORES CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
MERCURY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY,
Dated------------------- By________ _ ___ ___ ___ _________________________
(Representative ) ( Title)
ACME QUALITY PAINTS,
Employer.
Dated- ------------------ By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
F & G MERCHANDISING,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
HOLLYWOOD HAT Co.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 849
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 688-5229.
Neptune Meter Co. and Local 824, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica,' Petitioner and Local 306, International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and International
Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO,'
Intervenors . Case 29-RC-442. December 30, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Roland Watson of the National Labor Relations Board. The
Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Petitioner, the Intervenors,
and the Employer filed briefs.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and
Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons :
Prior to 1962, the Employer recognized an independent union as
,he collective-bargaining representative of its factory employees in
Long Island City, its foundry employees in Maspeth, Long Island,
and its clerical employees at both the factory and the foundry. In
1962, the factory and foundry employees voted to affiliate with Local
463, IUE, AFL-CIO, an amalgamated local which represented
employees in about 40 shops. Thereafter, the Employer entered into
collective-bargaining contracts with Local 463 for two bargaining
i Hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner or Teamsters.
2 Hereinafter referred to as Local 306, and International , respectively, or the
Intervenors.
162 NLRB No. 36.