Seamprufe, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1143 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SEAMPRUFE, INCORPORATED 1143
Accordingly, we find that the current contract is a bar to a
present determination of representatives, and we shall grant
the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
SEAMPRUFE, INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL LADIES
GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL. Case No. 16-CA-39.
September 22, 1953
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION,, ORDER,
AND DETERMINATION
On March 19, 1953, the Boardissueda Supplemental Decision
and Determination' in the above case, awarding back pay to
Edna Clendenon. Upon reconsideration, the Board has deter-
mined that Clendenon is not entitled to any back pay, for the
following reasons:
The pertinent facts relating to Clendenon's efforts to obtain
employment after her discriminatory discharge on January 3,
1948, are set forth in the aforesaid Supplemental Decision and
Determination. There is no dispute as to these facts, as they
are based on a stipulation in the record.
The applicable legal principles are correctly set forth in that
Supplemental Decision as follows:
The Board has held that an employee's claim for back
pay may be defeated by proof by the employer that during
the period for which back pay is claimed the employee
failed to make a reasonable search for employment.
As Clendenon failed to register with the United States
Employment Service, it is necessary for the Board to
determine in view of the facts set forth above whether
the Respondent has established that she failed to make
a reasonable effort to obtain employment in McAlester
substantially equivalent to her most recent employment
with the Respondent.
The record shows that during the period of 46 months between
her discharge and reinstatement Clendenon made altogether
only 6 applications for work at various establishments, at
intervals ranging from 5 to 14 months. Prior to her discharge
she had been employed by the Respondent, a garment manufac-
turer, as a machine operator and inspector-work, which, so
far as appears from the record, did not require any high degree
1103 NLRB 763. Member Peterson dissented.
106 NLRB No. 185.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of skill. Her rate of pay at the time of her discharge was 55
cents per hour. She was not justified therefore in limiting her
search to work involving the use of any special skill. While she
did not so limit her search altogether, but, in addition to her 3
applications at the only available garment factory, applied to a
telephone company, a laundry, and a hospital, she made only 1
such application at each place over a period of nearly 4 years.
Although she may have been warranted in not reapplying for
the hospital job because of her lack of training for that work,
no reason appears either for her failure to make additional
applications at the laundry or telephone company, or for her
failure, during the entire time that she was unemployed, to
make other applications elsewhere.
Upon the entire record, we find, therefore, that Clendenon
did not make a reasonable effort between January 3, 1948, and
November 1, 1951, to find new employment and that she is not
entitled to any back pay for that period.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Board's prior determination in this
case that Clendenon is entitled to back pay in the sum of
$2,595.86 be, and it hereby is, set aside.
DETERMINATION
Upon the basis of this Supplemental Decision and the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
determines that Edna Clendenon is not entitled to any back pay
under the terms of the decree of the United States Court of
Appeals.
Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the
above Second Supplemental Decision, Order, and Determination.
PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY TELEVISION CORPORATION
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL 440, A. F. L. Case No. 21-RC-3180.
September 24, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudical
error and are hereby affirmed.
The Employer contends that it is not engaged in commerce
or in activities affecting commerce, and that it would not
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this
case. We find merit in this contention.
106 NLRB No. 193.