Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 158 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Phyllis Tuliszewski , an office worker employed by the Respondent , testified that
in October, November, or December, 1957, Reustle, her immediate superior, stated
that if a union (apparently either one ) came in, the employees would lose their
radio privileges , coffee breaks, and "things like that." Assuming, without deciding,
that Reustle made such a statement , it constitutes at most an isolated threat by a
minor supervisor , insufficient standing alone to require a remedial order.
4. Alleged claim to know the Office Workers' adherents
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that since on or about August 20,
1957, the Respondent informed its employees "that it knew the names of all sup-
porters of [the Office Workers], in a manner constituting interference , restraint
and coercion ." As related above, there is testimony that in addressing the assembled
office employees in October 1957, Forman claimed that he knew every employee
who had signed up with the Office Workers. The General Counsel contends that
this "tended to . . . make the employees apprehensive , to frighten employees as
to future activities on behalf of" the Office Workers. But in the same speech For-
man stated that he did not care if the employees solicited for either union , so long
as it was not done on company time, which interfered with work; and that they had
a right to join a union if they wanted to do so. Moreover , Forman had earlier sent
the employees a letter stating , among other things: "The laws protect your right
to designate a union ." In the context of these assurances , Forman 's statement
that he knew the identity of all supporters of the Office Workers, if made, was
harmless; whatever coercive effect it might have had was adequately neutralized.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Freightways Co., Inc., is, and at all material times has been , engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Office Employees International Union , Local 153, AFL-CIO, and Local
Union No. 707, Highway and Local Motor Freight Drivers and Helpers , Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, both
are, and at all material times have been , labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The General Counsel has failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the
evidence that the Respondent committed any unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (1) or (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Shoreline Enterprises of America , Inc. and International Union
of United Brewery, Flour , Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery
Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 10-RC-2995 and
120-CA-9. July 17, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORIER, AND REVOCATION
OF CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On May 19, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Order in Case
No. 12-CA-9,1 in which it found that the Respondent had refused
to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of certain of its employees, in violation of Section
8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. In so finding, the Board affirmed the
validity of the prior proceedings which had resulted in the Union's
certification.2
1 117 NLRB 1619.
2 The Board had issued Its Decision and Certification of Representatives on October 26,
1955. Case No. 10-RC-2995, 114 NLRB 716.
124 NLRB No. 18.
PURITY BAKING COMPANY 159
Thereafter, the Board's Decision and Order was considered by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, upon petitions
to review filed by the Respondent and by four individual intervenors,
and the Board's cross-petition for enforcement of its order.
On January 14,1959, the court handed down its opinion.' The court
set aside the decision of the Board, denied enforcement of the Board's
order, and remanded the cases for any appropriate proceedings not
inconsistent with its opinion.
The court rejected the Board's contention that there had been a
refusal to bargain because it was not satisfied that the Board, in the
representation proceeding, had adequately safeguarded the rights of
the individual Intervenors, who should have been permitted to vote.
Thereafter, on May 5, 1959, the Respondent filed a motion seeking
dismissal of the complaint herein, and revocation of the Union's
certificate.'
In conformity with the court's opinion, which is the law of the
case, we therefore find that the Respondent did not refuse to bargain
with the Union, and we^shall dismiss the complaint herein. We shall
also revoke the Union's certificate.
[The Board dismissed the complaint and revoked the Certification
of Representatives issued by the Board on October 26, 1955.]
8 Shoreline Enterprises of America , Inc. v. N.L .R.B., 262 F. 2d 933 (C.A. 5).
Purity Baking Company and Local No. 63, Bakery and Confec-
tionery Workers' International Union of America ,' Petitioner
Miller-Patton Baking Company 2 and Local No. 63, Bakery and
Confectionery Workers' International Union of America, Peti-
tioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC-6436 and 13-RC-6434. July 17, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Robert G.
Mayberry, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from projudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with the case to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
1 The Petitioner local and its International are hereinafter called Local 63 and BCW,
respectively.
2 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
124 NLRB No. 19.