The Columbus Show Case Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 206 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
valid.4 We shall, therefore, set aside the election and direct that a
new election be conducted.
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 Aihed Electric Products , Inc., supra ; Tube Reducing Corporation, 110 NLRB 1080;
Bachmann Umbrsdge Worsted Corporation ( Uxbridge Mill ), 110 NLRB 1195. See also The
Wilmington Casting Company, 110 NLRB 2114, wherein the employer and the union cir-
culated separate altered ballots, and the Board , in setting aside the election , held that
the wrongful conduct of one party did not neutralize the other party's interference with
the employees ' freedom of choice.
THE COLUMBUS SHOW CASE COMPANY and M. L. GLASS
LOCAL 1423, UNrrED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and M. L. GLASS . Cases Nos. 39-CA-319 and
39-CB-46. January 14,1955
Decision and Order
On August 6, 1954, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
the Respondents had engaged 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. Thereafter, the Respondent Company and the Re-
spondent Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.'
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 Interme-
diate' Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the cases and
hereby adopts the findings,z conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modification.
i The Respondent Union also requested oral argument . In our opinion , the record and
the exceptions fully present the issues and the positions of the parties , Accordingly, the
request is denied
a Contrary to the Respondent Union's contention , we find that the Employer 's total
business in the sale and installation of store fixtures , and not the value of the Corpus
Christi installation alone, determines whether the Employer is engaged in interstate com-
merce. International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers,
Local Ano. 7, AFL, 92 NLRB 753, 758.
The Charging Party, M. L. Glass , filed charges against the Respondent Union and the
Respondent Employer on February 26 and March 4, 1953, respectively , covering the
alleged discriminatory treatment against himself . On March 30, 1953, he filed amended
charges listing Hale and Adams as additional discriminatees . The incidents upon which
the complaint was based occurred on September 29 and 30, 1952 , and involved Hale and
Adams as well as Glass. They occurred within the 6-month period antedating Glass' orig-
inal charges . Without relying on the rationale of Cathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157,
cited by the Trial Examiner in sustaining the timeliness of the charge , we find that the
111 NLRB No. 33.
THE COLUMBUS SHOW CASE COMPANY 207
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent Company and the
Respondent Union had independently violated Section 8 ( a) (1) and
8 (b) (1) (A ), respectively , by various statements to the effect that
the discriminatees could not work on the Corpus Christi job because
of the Respondent Union's opposition . We do not adopt the Trial
Examiner's findings with respect to them, because the complaint did
not allege that the Respondents had committed independent viola-
tions of Section 8 ( a) (1) and 8 (b) (1) (A).3
Order
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that :
I. Respondent Company, The Columbus Show Case Company,
Columbus, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
A. Cease and desist from :
(1) Encouraging membership in Local 1423, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, or in any other labor
organization, by discharging employees or refusing to hire applicants
for employment because they have not obtained clearances or job re-
ferrals from the Respondent Union, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment.
(2) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the right
to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from
any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
B. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying, all payroll and other records necessary to
analyze and compute the amounts of back pay due under the terms
of this Order :
amended charges are related to the original charges, arising out of the same event. The
allegations of discrimination against Hale and Adams were therefore properly included
in the complaint . N L R B v United States Gypsum Company, 206 F 2d 410 (C. A. 5) ;
Southern Furniture Mfg Co v N. L. R. B., 194 F. 2d 59 (C. A 5 ). Cf. Knickerbocker
Manufacturing Company, Inc , 109 NLRB 1195.
8 See I. F Sales Company, 82 NLRB 137, at p 138 ( footnote 6).
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) Post copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Ap-
pendix A" 4 at all sites, if any, within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Respondent Union, where it is now engaged in installation work.
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representa-
tive of Respondent Company, be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecu-
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply therewith.
II. Respondent Union, Local 1423, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL, its officers, representatives, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
A. Cease and desist from :
(1) Causing or attempting to cause The Columbus Show Case Com-
pany, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate against
Millard L. Glass, James T. Adams, Jr., Dewey D. Hale, or any other
employee or applicant for employment in violation of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
(2) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of, or
applicants for employment with, The Columbus Show Case Company,
its successors or assigns, in the exercise of their right to engage in, or
to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the concerted activities spec-
ified in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
B. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Notify The Columbus Show Case Company in writing that it
has no objection to the hiring and employment by the Company of Mil-
lard L. Glass, James T. Adams, Jr., Dewey D. Hale, or any other per-
son, without prior or subsequent clearance or job referral from it.
(2) Mail copies of the above notification to Millard L. Glass, James
T. Adams, Jr., and Dewey D. Hale.
(3) Post at its business office and meeting hall in Corpus Christi,
Texas, and all other places where notices to its members are customarily
A In the event that this Order is enforced by 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."
THE COLUMBUS SHOW CASE COMPANY 209
posted, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked"AppendixB." 5
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the representative
of Respondent Union, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(4) Mail to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, signed
copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix B for posting, the
Company willing, at all its projects, if any, within the territorial juris-
diction of Respondent Union, in places where notices to employees and
applicants for employment are customarily posted.
(5) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
III. The Respondents, The Columbus Show Case Company, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Local 1423, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, its officers, represent-
atives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall jointly and severally make
whole Millard L. Glass, James T. Adams, Jr., and Dewey D. Hale, in
the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy," for any loss of pay each of them may have suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Order.
5 See footnote 4, supra
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT
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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees and appli-
cants for employment that :
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 1423, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, or in
any other labor organization, by discharging employees or refus-
ing to hire applicants for employment, or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees that they may continue
to work for us, or inform applicants for employment that they will
be employed by us, only if they secure clearance or a job referral
from the above-named Union.
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees or applicants for employment in the exercise
of the right to self-organization , to form, join , or assist labor
organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection and to refrain from any or all of such activities , except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Millard L. Glass, James T. Adams, Jr.,
and Dewey D. Hale for any loss of pay each may have suffered as
a result of our discrimination against him.
THE COLUMBUS SHOW CASE COMPANY,
F. mplo yer.
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.
Appendix B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 1423, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES
OF1 AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH, THE COLUMBUS SHOW
CASE COMPANY
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, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause The Columbus Show
Case Company, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to dis-
criminate against Millard L. Glass, James T. Adams, Jr., Dewey
D. Hale, or any other employee of, or applicant for employment
with, said Company, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
of, or applicants for employment with, The Columbus Show Case
Company, its successors or assigns, in the exercise of their right
to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the
concerted activities specified in Section 7 of the Act, 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.
THE COLUMBUS SHOW CASE COMPANY Y ;211
WE WILL notify The Columbus Show Case Company in writing,
and furnish copies of such notification to the respective persons
named below, that we have no objection to their hiring and em-
ployment without prior or subsequent clearance or job referral by
us, or the hiring and employment of any other person without our
clearance, by said Company, on any project operated by said
Company within our territorial jurisdiction :
Millard L. Glass
James T. Adams, Jr.
Dewey D. Hale
WE WILL make whole the above-named persons for any loss of
pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them.
LOCAL 1423, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
Labor Organization.
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
Upon charges and amended charges filed by M. L. Glass, an individual, the Gen-
eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called General Coun-
sel and the Board) issued a consolidated complaint on July 13, 1953, against Re-
spondent The Columbus Show Case Company, herein called the Company, and
Respondent Local 1423, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL, herein called the Union.' As amended at the hearing, the complaints alleged
that the Company on or about September 29, 1952, discharged or refused to hire
J. T. Adams, and on or about September 30, 1952, discharged or refused to hire
M. L. Glass and D. Hale,2 and failed to reinstate said employees, because they were
not members of and had not been "cleared" by the Union, and/or had engaged in or
refused to engage in concerted activities, and/or for reasons other than their failure
to tender periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required by the Union, in vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, and that on the dates aforesaid the
Union caused or attempted to cause the Company to discharge or refuse to hire said
employees and refuse to reinstate them for the same reasons, in violation of Section
8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. Copies of the charges, amended charges, con-
solidated complaints, and order of consolidation were duly served on Respondents,
who in turn filed answers denying the commission of the unfair labor practices
alleged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on October 26, 27, and 28, 1953, in Fort
Worth, Texas, before the duly designated Trial Examiner, in which all parties par-
ticipated, were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues, and to file briefs and present oral argument. Motions of General Coun-
i Wherever the parent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America is
mentioned separately, it will be called the Brotherhood
2 The employees' full names are James T. Adams, Jr., Millard L Glass, and Dewey D.
Hale.
344056- -55-vol 111-15
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
set at the outset to amend the consolidated complaints were granted over objection;
motions of the Respondents to dismiss the amended complaints for lack of timely
filing and service of amended charges relating to Adams and Hale, and for particu-
lars as to portions of the amended complaints, were denied. At the close of General
Counsel's case, Respondents' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints on
various grounds were denied. Respondents introduced no evidence, but rested
their case on General Counsel's proof, and at the close of the case renewed their
motions to dismiss on grounds previously stated and for other reasons. Those mo-
tions are disposed of by the findings made and conclusions reached in this report.
All parties waived oral argument, but filed briefs with the Trial Examiner; the Union
filed a reply brief under authority granted by the Chief Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Company is an Ohio corporation engaged in the business of installation of
stores fixtures. In the 12-month period preceding the filing of the complaints here-
in, it purchased materials valued in excess of $750,000 which were shipped directly
to its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio, from points outside the State.
In the same period it sold products valued in excess of $750,000 which were shipped
from its principal place of business in Ohio directly to points outside the State. I
find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 1423, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, which admits to
membership employees of the Company.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
During the last 6 months of 1952 the Company was engaged in the installation
of fixtures in stores of Fedway Stores Corporation in Wichita Falls and Corpus
Christi, Texas, under contract with the latter corporation. The installation in each
city was a separate and distinct operation. The installation in Wichita Falls started
about August 27, 1952, and ended early in October; the work in Corpus Christi
started the latter part of September 1952, and ended about the middle of October.
In the early part of September 1952, Glass, Adams, and Hale were employed by
the Company as carpenters for the installation of store fixtures at the Wichita Falls
job. They worked on that job until its completion on September 26, 1952. Each
was hired by and worked under the supervision of Harold A. Ritter, the foreman
on the job. During the employment, the three were members in good standing of
the Wichita Falls local of the parent Brotherhood. In the week or so before the com-
pletion date, Foreman Ritter and Max Teach,3 vice president of the Company who was
the supervising engineer or architect on the job and gave orders both to Ritter and the
carpenters, spoke to the three about working for the Company on the Corpus Christi
job, complimenting them on their work in the installation of a new type of store
fixture which the Company had introduced at the Wichita Falls job, and stating he
would like to have the three work at Corpus Christi, because they were familiar
with the new fixtures and it would save the Company money to use their services
there and thus avoid breaking in a new crew. The three told Ritter and Teach
before September 26 that they would go to the Corpus Christi job. Late Friday
night, September 26, as the carpenters were putting the finishing touches on the job,
Teach and the president of the Company (identified in the record only as Carl)
were present, and Teach called for the names of those who had decided to go to
Corpus Christi Glass, Adams, Hale, and another carpenter, Young, gave him their
names, which he wrote down in a notebook, and Teach and the president then told
them they would like to have them start work on the Corpus job Sunday morning
if they could get there. Glass replied that they could not go to work Sunday, as
it was necessary for union members to clear in to the Corpus Christi local of the
Brotherhood before going to work, and as the union offices were not open on Sunday,
they could not clear in and start work until Monday morning at the earliest. Glass
stated that he had personal business to handle on Monday, and would report to
the job on Tuesday. Teach and the president said that was satisfactory, and that
8 He is also called "Teitz" in the record.
THE COLUMBUS SHOW CASE COMPANY 213
the men should get to Corpus Christi as soon as they could, clear in with the Union
and come to work. When the president, Carl, paid Glass off that night, he told
him he was glad to have him work at Corpus Christi, and Glass repeated he would
get there as quick as he could. Adams and Young said they would be at the job
on Monday.
Adams and Young drove to Corpus Christi over the weekend, arriving in town
Sunday night. They reported to the Fedway job in. Corpus Christi at the usual
starting time, 8 a. m., Monday morning, September 29, with their work clothes and
tools, ready to go to work. At the site, they met Teach and the president of the
Company who introduced them to Brannon, one of the foremen on the job, and
directed Brannon to take them to the union office to get them "cleared in" and bring
them back to work. Brannon took them to the union headquarters where he was
referred to W. C. (Shorty) Echols, business agent of the Union. Brannon told
Echols he had come to have Adams and Young cleared to work on the Fedway job.
Adams told Echols he and Young had just finished setting fixtures for the Company
at Wichita Falls, and the Company had sent them to Corpus Christi to do the same
work. Echols examined the union books of Adams and Young, and said that they
were in order, and that he would clear them in to the Union if they desired, but
also said that they were not going to work on the Fedway job, because the Union
had men in Corpus Christi qualified for that job; he said also that he would put
Adams and Young at the bottom of a list of carpenters waiting for jobs, below
framers, roofers, deckers, and apprentices, and he would guarantee that they would
not work on the Fedway job, might not work on the next 2 or 3, and it might be
2 or 3 months before they would work.4 Echols further told them that the Union
did not like the Company's attitude because it did not have any local supervisors
on the job, and that he was going to do something about that. He also said that
if Adams and Young tried to go to work on that job, "they" would pull all the men
off the job, the men could always "go fishing." Echols asked the three specifically
if Adams and Young had entered the building on the job site, saying that if he knew
for certain that they had, he would have fined them $50 apiece for soliciting work.
None of the three admitted that Adams and Young had done so. Adams told
Echols he had never encountered anything like this before, and Echols replied, "You
have , encountered it here."
Brannon then took Adams and Young back to the job site, but asked them to wait
outside while he went in to report to Teach, saying he was afraid they would get
fined if they went into the building. He went inside, and came out with Teach, who
told Adams and Young that company officials would have a conference with the
Union and try to persuade it to let them and the two other carpenters coming in
work as leadmen , a nonsupervisory job. Teach said he had never run into a situa-
tion like this before. Teach and the president of the Company then had a talk in a
nearby restaurant with Echols and one Sorenson , an official of the Corpus Christi
Building Trades Council, of which the Union was a member, following which Teach
told Adams and Young that he did not believe they could convince the Union that
Adams and Young should work, that the Union would not let the Company put
them to work, and they did not have a chance of working on the job. Adams and
Young then tried to make contact through the local Union with the headquarters
of the Brotherhood but without success, and then decided to wait until Glass and
Hale arrived and talk with them about the problem.
Glass and Hale arrived in Corpus Christi Monday night and reported at the Fed-
way job site, ready to work, at 8 a. in. Tuesday, September 30. They first talked
with Adams and Young and learned about their experiences of the previous day and
the Union's "first-in first-out" assignment rule. Glass then talked with Teach and
said he was ready to go to work. Teach told him they had run into difficulty with
the Union and did not know what they would be able to do about it, that he still
wanted Glass and Hale to go to work if they could get "cleared" through the Union
at Corpus Christi, and that they would have to go to the Union and straighten that
out. Teach told them the Union would not permit the Company to work any out-of-
town men , claiming that it had enough local men to handle the job . Glass protested
to Teach that he did not see how the Union could prevent a man from going to work,
and that if the Company wanted him to work for it, he thought he had a right to do
so, so long as he abided by union rules. Teach repeated the Company would like him
to work for it if there was any way he could, and told him to go to the Union and
see what he could do. Foreman Ritter, who was working on the job, then came in
and handed Glass a calling card of Rolla H . Watson , assistant business agent of the
4 The Union's practice of sending out men to jobs in the order in which they are placed
on the waiting list was desciibed by the Union 's counsel as the "first-in first-out" rule,
and will be so designated in this report.
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union , with the name of Sorenson written on it in pencil , and told Glass that Soren-
son might be of some help to him . While they were talking , Foreman Brannon came
up and advised Ritter not to talk to Glass, saying the Union would fine Glass $50
for even being in the building.
Glass and Hale then went to the Union's office where they saw a man named Ger-
ald W. Perry, standing behind a wicket window in the office .5 Glass showed his
union book to Perry and said he wanted to "clear in." Perry told him his book was
in order and asked where he intended to work. Glass said he already had a job at
the Fedway operation. Perry then said he would clear Glass in if he desired, but
Glass was not going to work on that job , as "we have a waiting list here and your
name will go to the bottom of that list" which contained rough framers, apprentice
carpenters, finish carpenters, and anyone carrying a card in the Corpus Christi local.
Glass asked Perry if he would place apprentices at work ahead of journeymen car-
penters on high-priced fixtures, and Perry said he would, and that the Fedway job
and several others would be finished before Glass went to work because all the names
above him on the list would be called before his. Glass said he could not see it that
way, that he was not used to that method of getting employment, and had never en-
countered it before. He did not ask Perry to put him on the list, as he said he felt
it did not apply to him where he already had a job. Hale did not attempt to "clear in"
or be put on the list. Perry also told Glass that "if the company insists on putting
even one of you all to work, I will pull every man off the job." Glass replied that
he thought there was such a thing as the Taft-Hartley Labor Act, and Perry said "Yes,
but you ain't got the nerve to use it , because you are a union man and carry a union
card." Glass said he thought he had a constitutional right to go to work if he had
a job, and Perry replied, "that is the way it is," and repeated that if the company put
even one of "you men" to work, "we would call every man off the job." Glass then
asked to see Echols, but Perry told him the latter was out.
Glass and Hale returned to the job site and spoke to the president of the Company,
Teach, and Ritter about their talk with Perry. The president said he had never ex-
perienced this situation before. Glass indicated that he and the other 2 carpenters
wanted to work on the job, and the 3 officials told him they would be glad to have
them work if they could "clear" with the Union so that the Union would not bring
pressure on the Company, and that they did not know how they could go to work
otherwise. Ritter told Glass he had had trouble going to work on the job himself,
as the Union did not want him to work, claiming they had foremen in Corpus Christi
who were qualified to do his job. At the moment Ritter was supervising the installa-
tion of fixtures on one floor of the site, and remarked to Glass that the carpenters
working for him were slow and not "getting on to" the work, and that Glass and his
companions should do their best to "get this thing straightened out where you can
go to work," because they could turn out more work than he was then getting.
That afternoon, Glass and Adams had a talk with Sorenson, of the Building Trades
Council, in which they explained why the Union would not let them go to work, and
its threat to pull the men off the job if they worked, and asked for his help. Glass
told him that he already had a job with the Company, otherwise he would be satis-
fied to go to the bottom of the Union's waiting list. Sorenson told him that was the
Union's policy and he could do nothing about it, that he was not the man to see.
Glass said the policy was not in keeping with union procedure and violated his con-
stitutional rights. Sorenson told him if he did not like it , he could do as the sign
in Texarkana said, i. e., get out of Texas. Later that afternoon, Glass, Adams, and
Hale left town without working on the Fedway job.
The above findings are based on uncontradicted and credited testimony of Glass,
Adams, and Hale, stipulated facts, and documentary evidence. The Union argues
that portions of Adams' testimony should be rejected as incredible because of his
inability clearly to identify Echols though the man sat before him at the hearing, and
because of documentary facts in the record which, it claims, show the Corpus Christi
job was fully manned when the three carpenters got there and tend to discredit their
claim of a prior contract for employment there. This argument is without merit.
Where neither Respondent adduced any testimony to controvert that of the General
Counsel's witnesses, but based their final motions to dismiss solely on General Coun-
sel's proof , I must accept as true and consider all facts proven by the uncontradicted
5 Perry's exact title or position with the Union is not stated in the record However,
he sat with union counsel and Business Agent Echols during the hearing, and was pointed
out by Glass as the person to whom he had talked. From his remarks to Glass, which
'were similar to those of Echols to Adams the day before, Glass and Hale had good reason
to believe that he was speaking for the Union I find from all of the facts that Perry had
apparent authority to speak for the Union See Painters District Council No. 6, etc., 97
NLRB 654, 664
THE COLUMBUS SHOW CASE COMPANY 215
testimony of General Counsel 's witnesses , together with all reasonable and legitimate
inferences therefrom ; and where the testimony permits of conflicting inferences, those
most favorable to the General Counsel 's case must be drawn.6
Concluding Findings
It is clear from the facts found above that the Company and the three carpenters
had reached an agreement on or before September 26, 1952, for the continued em-
ployment of the three on the Corpus Christi job , that in accordance with the agree-
ment Adams presented himself on September 29 and Glass and Hale presented them-
selves on the 30th, at that job ready to go to work, and that the Company refused
to let them start work on the dates they reported , because they failed to secure prior
"clearance" from the Union . Whether the arrangement was a continuation of their
prior employment at Wichita Falls, or a new employment at Corpus Christi, is im-
material ; the salient fact is that the Company refused to let them work at Corpus
Christi for the reasons stated . The Company knew that their failure to secure clear-
ance was due to the Union 's referral priority , or "first -in first-out," policy of assign-
ing local carpenters on its waiting list to jobs. It is thus clear that the Company dis-
criminated against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment because they
were denied clearance for a reason which it knew to be other than their failure to
tender proper periodic dues or initiation fees required for acquisition of or retention
of membership in the Union . It took this stand only after its foreman had endeavored
to secure clearance from the Union on the 29th for Adams and Young and had been
met with the threat that if the Company employed them , the Union would cause a
strike by pulling every man off the job. It maintained this stand on the 30th after
Glass and Hale had been similarly rebuffed by the Union and denied clearance , despite
the fact that the three had indicated their desire to work for the Company notwith-
standing the Union 's policy. The reason for the Company 's refusal to allow them
to work without clearance was its stated desire to avoid the economic pressure threat-
ened by the Union. The Company made it clear to them on the 30th that it would
be glad to let them work provided they could secure clearance in some way, and it
is obvious that, but for the Union 's refusal to clear them due to its referral priority
policy, the Company would have permitted them to work. As the Company knew
of this policy, its refusal to let them work without clearance after the threat by the
Union was an acquiescence in the Union 's application of that policy to them as a
condition precedent to referral or clearance , and in effect a recognition of that policy
as a condition of their employment . The Company thus permitted the Union to de-
termine under its own rules what carpenters would be allowed to work on the job.
There was no valid union -security agreement in existence which might have afforded
the Company and the Union a valid basis for the Company 's conduct . Under these
circumstances , it is clear , and I find , that the Company, by refusing employment to
Glass, Adams, and Hale on the Corpus Christi job, has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act . As the Union
threatened the Company with a strike if it employed Adams, at the same time that
it denied him clearance under its priority referral policy , and the Company con-
sequently refused to permit the three carpenters to work unless and until they secured
clearance , in order to avoid economic pressure from the Union , it is likewise clear,
and I find, that the Union thereby attempted to and did cause the Company to dis-
criminate against the three in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and that the
Union thereby violated Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. Ameri-
can Pipe and Steel Corporation, 93 NLRB 54, 56; Radio Officers' Union of the
Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL, 93 NLRB 1523, 1527, enfd 196 F. 2d 960
(C. A. 2), affd. 347 U. S. 17, Engineers Limited Pipeline Company, 95 NLRB 176.
The Company argues that the three carpenters sought employment at Corpus
Christi only as "union men ," and did not intend to work there on any other basis,
that their decision to "clear in" with the Union before going to work was a self-im-
posed condition precedent to working , and that when they failed to obtain such clear-
ance, there was no employment in existence nor any offer by them to work without
such clearance , ergo there could be no discharge or refusal to hire by the Company.
ON. L R B. v. Ray Smith Transport Co, 193 F 2d 142 (C. A 5). The Corpus Christi
carpenter payroll , relied on by the Union , shows that the Company hired 9 carpenters on
the 29th , 3 on the 30th , and 2 on later dates These facts tend to indicate that the job
was far from fully manned on the 29th and 30th . and that there must have been work
for Adams and Young when they arrived on the 29th , and for Glass and Hale when they
came on the 30th , and tend to support rather than negate the testimony of Glass, et al.,
that the Company wanted them to work both days.
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This argument might have merit if Glass and his companions had accepted the Union's
`-'first-in first-out" policy when first stated to him, and returned to Wichita Falls with-
out further ado. But the record shows they did the opposite: they balked at that
policy, considered it unfair to them, returned to the job site and sought the help of
the Company and a Building Trades Council official in overcoming the Union's posi-
tion, and on the 30th definitely indicated that they desired to work in spite of the
Union's referral policy. Glass' remarks to the company officials on the 30th make
it clear that all three still desired to carry out the employment agreement made earlier
with the Company, notwithstanding that they could not obtain clearance because of
that policy. Thus, although it can be argued that Glass at the last moment in Wichita
Falls had engrafted on their agreement for continued employment in Corpus Christi
an additional condition that they must first "clear in" with the Union there, it is clear
that on the 30th the three had withdrawn that condition when they indicated that they
wanted to, and felt they had a right to, work in spite of the Union's policy and refusal
of clearance. It was at that point that the Company, knowing the Union would call
a strike if it employed any of them without clearance, itself imposed the condition of
prior clearance when it insisted that they must straighten themselves out with the
Union, and in effect get a clearance from it, before they could work. In these cir-
cumstances, the Company's refusal to let them work amounted to a discharge, assum-
ing the prior arrangement was for a continuation of their employment in Corpus
Christi, or a refusal to hire, or withdrawal of an offer of hire, if it be considered
merely as an offer of new employment there; from either point of view, the Com-
pany's refusal to allow them to work without clearance was an illegal discrimination
in violation of the Act. Although the three indicated in their testimony that they
had no intention of working in Corpus Christi other than as "union men ," I con-
sider this testimony immaterial in the light of their conduct found above which
clearly indicated their desire to work notwithstanding the Union's priority referral
policy. If this amounted to an attempt to work as "non-union" carpenters, as the
Union now intimates, such attempt affords no defense to either Respondent, for in
the Radio Officers' Union case, supra, the Supreme Court held (347 U. S. 17 at 40)
that "The policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational
rights. Thus, Sections 8 (a) (3) and 8 (b) (2) were designed to allow employees
to freely exercise their right to join unions, be good, bad, or indifferent members, or
abstain from joining any union without imperiling their livelihood." The Court
noted that the only limitation imposed by Congress on these rights was specified in
the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) authorizing certain union-security agreements (which
do not exist in this case).?
• Both Respondents argue that the complaints must fall for lack of proof of any
agreement, understanding, or practice between them which limited employment on
the Corpus Christi job to members of the Union or persons referred or "cleared"
by it. This argument is without merit. While there is no substantial proof of such
agreement or understanding, the Board's decisions in the American Pipe and Steel
case, supra, and in Engineers Limited Pipeline Compahy, supra, make it clear
that such proof is not necessary to a finding of discrimination where, as here, the
employer made it clear to the carpenters that they could not work without clearance
from the Union, and in effect acquiesced in the Union's determination to prevent
them from working on the job because of its referral priority policy.
The Union claims that since the three carpenters were at all times union mem-
bers in good standing, there can be no finding that the actions of Respondents
encouraged membership in the Union. This argument is likewise untenable. A
similar argument was made by the Trial Examiner in the American Pipe and Steel
case as the basis for finding no violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (b) (2), and
was rejected by the Board which said (93 NLRB 54 at 56) :
It is well established that an employer's acceptance of the determination of a
labor organization as to who shall be permitted to work for it is violative of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. where, as here, no lawful contractual obliga-
tion for such action exists. Contrary to the implication of the Trial Examiner,
neither Watson's membership in the Local, nor the Local's desire to enforce
an alleged obligation of such membership, removes this case from the appli-
cation of that principle. Rather, by the act of yielding to the Local' s demand
that Watson be removed, the Employer perforce strengthened the position
7 The admitted fact that the three did not "clear in" to the Union after the remarks of
Echols and Perry to them cannot be held against them, for these remarks showed them
that such clearance would not enable them to work for the Company, their basic objective;
they were not required to perform a useless act in view of the Union's policy which would
deny them employment already arranged, even if they "cleared in "
THE COLUMBUS SHOW CASE COMPANY 217
of the Local and forcibly demonstrated to the employees that membership in,
as well as adherence to the rules of, that organization was extremely desirable.
Such encouragement of union membership was particularly effective when,
as in the present case, the Employer deferred to the demand of the Local that
employees be cleared through its hall, and membership appears to have been
a condition precedent to obtaining the necessary clearance.
In the Radio Officers' Union case, supra, the Board held (93 NLRB 1523 at 1527)
that "discrimination aimed at compelling obedience to union rules (in this case the
job-rotation principle) encourages membership in a labor organization no less
than discrimination designed to combat dual unionism," citing the American Pipe
and Steel case. In its decision enforcing the Board's order, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals held as to Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (b) (2) (196 F. 2d 920 at
965), that "refusal of clearance caused the company to discriminate against Fowler
in regard to hire. Without necessary clearance it could not accept him as an em-
ployee. The result was to encourage membership in the union. No threats or
promises to the company were necessary. . . . Such conduct displayed to all non-
members the union's power and the strong measures it was prepared to take to
protect union members." In affirming the circuit court, the United States Supreme
Court held that specific evidence of intent to encourage or discourage is not an
indispensable element of proof of violation of Section 8 (a) (3), that proof of
certain types of discrimination satisfies the intent requirement, and that specific
proof of intent is unnecessary where employer conduct inherently encourages or
discourages union membership, relying on the common law theory that a man is
held to intend the foreseeable consequences of his own acts. The Court applied
this rule to the cases before it, and, in discussing the power of the Board to draw
inferences of encouragement or discouragement of union membership, it said (347
U. S. 17 at 52):
The circumstances in Radio Officers and Teamsters are nearly identical. In
each case the employer discriminated upon the instigation of the union. The
purposes of the unions in causing such discrimination clearly were to encourage
members to perform obligations or supposed obligations of membership. Ob-
viously, the unions would not have invoked such a sanction had they not
considered it an effective method of coercing compliance with union obliga-
tions or practices. Both Boston and Fowler were denied jobs by employers
solely because of the unions' actions. Since encouragement of union mem-
bership is obviously a natural and foreseeable consequence of any employer
discrimination at the request of a union, those employers must be presumed
to have intended such encouragement. It follows that it was eminently rea-
sonable for the Board to infer encouragement of union membership, and the
Eighth Circuit erred in holding encouragement not proved.
This language is apposite to the facts at bar. The Union's "first-in first-out" job
referral policy was admittedly designed to prefer and protect its own local mem-
bers in job assignments as against out-of-town nonmember carpenters. Where the
Union enforced that policy by a threat of strike which caused the Company to
deny employment to three out-of-town carpenters, nonmembers of the Union, such
conduct clearly displayed to all nonmembers the Union's power and the strong
measures it was prepared to take to protect its members. The clear result was to
encourage membership in the Union and compliance with its rules and policies, and
at the same time to discourage both members and nonmembers from exercise of
their guaranteed right to refrain from assisting it by compliance with its local rules
and policies under pain of denial of employments In affirming the decision of
the second circuit in the Radio Officers' Union case, the Supreme Court used the
following language which is likewise apposite here (347 U. S. 17 at 42): "A fortiori,
the Second Circuit correctly concluded in Radio Officers that encouragement to
remain in good standing in a union is proscribed. Thus that union in causing the
employer to discriminate against Fowler by denying him employment in order
to coerce Fowler into following the union's desired hiring practices deprived Fowler
of a protected right."
The decision of the Supreme Court in the Radio Officers' Union case and the
companion Teamsters case also disposes of the Union's argument against a finding
of violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (b) (2) based on the opinion of the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in N. L. R. B. v. George W. Reed, 206 F. 2d
184, in which that court noted that the question of encouragement of union mem-
8 See also N . L R. B. v George W. Reed, 206 F. 2d 184 (C. A. 9).
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bership was pending before the Supreme Court in the above two cases . The de-
rivative argument that the facts herein "revolve around the internal affairs of a
union and thus are not among the unfair labor practices condemned by Section
8 (a) (3) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act" is untenable in the light of the rejection by
the second circuit in the Radio Officers' Union case, 196 F. 2d 960, 964, of the
union's argument there that neither the Board nor the courts could review a union's
interpretation of its own powers. Other arguments of the Union appear to be
derivatives or extensions of the arguments considered and rejected above, and will
not be discussed in detail. However, one procedural argument should be con-
sidered in extenso.
Respondents argue that the complaints should be dismissed as to Adams and
Hale, because the amended charges naming them were filed and served more than
6 months after the date of the alleged discrimination against them. The original
charge against the Company, naming only Glass, was filed by him March 4, 1953,
and served on the Company March 9, 1953; the amended charge naming Glass,
Adams, and Hale as discriminatees was filed by Glass on March 30, 1953, and
served on the Company April 2, 1953. The original charge against the Union,
naming only Glass, was filed February 26, 1953, and served on the Union February
27, 1953; Glass' amended charge, which added Hale and Adams, was filed March 30,
1953, and served on the Union March 31, 1953. I consider the arguments without
merit. It is settled Board law, approved by the courts, that the period of limitation
under Section 10 (b) of the Act is the 6 months prior to the date of filing and serv-
ice of the original charge, that the complaint may lawfully enlarge upon the charge
if the added unfair labor practices were committed within that period, and that this
is so whether or not amended charges are filed alleging such new unfair labor prac-
tices.9 As to the Company, the 6 months' period starts September 4, 1952, and as
to the Union, it begins August 26, 1952. Thus, the Company's discrimination
against the three carpenters, and the Union's causation thereof, which all occurred
on September 29 and 30, 1952, falls well within the 6-month period. The Union
argues, however, the above principles apply only in cases in which a labor organiza-
tion has filed the initiating charge, not where an individual does so, and that where
an individual files charges after expiration of the 6-month period involving addi-
tional persons as discriminatees, without proof of authority to file on their behalf,
allegations involving such persons cannot be added to the complaint or litigated be-
cause the Respondents could have no reasonable expectation from the filing and
service of the original charge that the charging party might file, or have authority
to file, amended charges involving other similar instances of discrimination, as could
reasonably be expected where a union representing many persons filed the initiating
charge. This argument is without merit for various reasons. First, the cases cited
above make it clear that amended charges adding new unfair labor practices are
mere surplusage, and are not prerequisites to the inclusion of such unfair labor prac-
tices in the complaint. Second, it is well settled that no showing of authority to
make and file a charge is necessary, and the lack of proof of such authority is not
ground for dismissal of a complaint as to persons other than the charging individual.
Textile Machine Works, Inc., 96 NLRB 1333, 1358, 1359. Furthermore, the logical
effect of the Union's argument, if valid, would be to restrict the Board, in cases
where a charge is filed by an individual, to allegation and proof only of the unfair
labor practices originally charged, regardless of whether its investigation disclosed
any other unfair labor practices within the same period of limitation. Thus, a re-
strictive rule of procedure and pleading would be imposed on the Board where
charges are filed by an individual, in contrast to the liberal rules obtaining where
charges are filed by a labor organization. The mere statement of such a discrimi-
natory principle exposes the fallacy therein and requires its rejection , especially where
applied in the enforcement of general legislation , such as this Act, which was pro-
mulgated and must be enforced in the public interest. Finally, the Union cites no
authorities, and I have been unable to find any, which supports its theory. I there-
fore deny Respondents ' motions to dismiss the complaints on this ground.
I further find that the Company independently violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act by (1) Teach's statements to Adams and Young on September 29, that the
Union would not permit the Company to put them to work, and that they did not
have a chance of working on the job, (2) Teach's statements to Glass on Septem-
ber 30 that he still wanted Glass and Hale to go to work if they could get "cleared"
through the Union, and ( 3) the statements of Teach, the company president, and
Foreman Ritter to Glass the same day to the effect that they would be glad to have
6 Cat hey Lumber Co., 86 NLRB 157, enfd. 185 F. 2d 1021 (C. A. 5) ; Jay Company, Inc.,
103 NLRB 1645, 1647, 1648.
THE COLUMBUS SHOW CASE COMPANY 219
him and the other two carpenters work if they could "clear" with the Union so that
the Union would not bring pressure on the Company, and that they did not know
how they could go to work otherwise. I also find that the Union independently vio-
lated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act by (1) Business Agent Echol's statements
to Adams and Young on September 29 that he would put them at the bottom of
a waiting list, that he would guarantee that they would not work on the Fedway
job, or the next 2 or 3, or for several months, that if they tried to work on the Fed-
way job, he would pull all the men off the job, and that if he knew they had entered
the job site, he would have fined them for soliciting work, and (2) union represent-
ative Perry's statements to Glass on September 30 that he would not work on the
Fedway job, and several others would be finished before he worked, that his name
would go to the bottom of a list of local union members, waiting for work, and
that if the Company put him to work, he would pull every man off the job.to
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the activities of the Company 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and that they
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that the Company has unlawfully discriminated against Glass, Adams,
and Hale in regard to their hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, and that the Union unlawfully caused the Company
to engage in such discrimination in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that the Company and the Union be ordered,
jointly and severally, to make Glass, Adams, and Hale whole for any loss of pay each
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him, by payment
to him of a sum equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages on the
Company's Corpus Christi Fedway operation from the date of the discrimination
against him (September 29, 1952, for Adams, and September 30, 1952, for Glass
and Hale) to the date when that project was completed, or the date when his services
would normally have been terminated on that operation, absent discrimination, if that
date be earlier, less his net earnings during such period." Back pay shall be com-
puted in accordance with Board policy set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289. As the Corpus Christi operation was completed on or about October
14, 1952, the Company need not offer reinstatement to these men. However, as the
Union clearly indicated to them and the Company that it would prevent them and
other out-of-town carpenters from working on the Fedway project and similar proj-
ects in Corpus Christi in the future for the protection of local men on its waiting list,
I shall recommend that the Union notify the Company, sending copies to the 3
carpenters, that it has no objection to the future hiring and employment of the 3
and any other persons by the Company on existing projects and any others the
Company may start within a reasonable time in the future, within the Union's
territorial jurisdiction, including Corpus Christi. Cf. J. R. Cantrall Company, 96
NLRB 786; United Mine Workers of America, District 2, 96 NLRB 1389. I shall
recommend that the Company make available to the Board payroll and other
records to facilitate the computation of the amount of back pay due.
The nature and variety of the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondents
indicate a general purpose to limit the lawful rights of employees and applicants
for employment, and persuade me that such practices are potentially related to simi-
lar unfair labor practices, the future commission of which may be reasonably antici-
pated from Respondents' past course of conduct. The preventive purposes of the
Act will be thwarted unless the Board's order is coextensive with the threat. I shall
therefore recommend that a broad cease and desist order issue against both Re-
spondents.
10 See Mundet Cork Corporation, 96 NLRB 1143, 1150; Bechtel Corporation, 108 NLRB
1070
11 The extent of this period, in the light of the length of time worked by Glass, Adams,
and Hale on the Wichita Falls job, and the amount of payroll on both jobs disclosed by
the record, effectively disposes of the de minimis argument raised by the Union.
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 1423, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Millard L.
Glass, James T. Adams, Jr., and Dewey D. Hale, thereby encouraging membership in
a labor organization, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the above discrimination and other conduct found above, thereby interfer-
ing with, restraining, and coercing employees or applicants for employment in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
4. By attempting to cause and causing the Company, an employer, to discriminate
against Glass, Adams, and Hale aforesaid, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
5. By causing the Company to discriminate as aforesaid, and by other conduct
found above, thereby restraining and coercing employees or applicants for employ-
ment in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Union has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
TED RAZOOK AND BEVERLY RAZOOK, A CO-PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A VOGUE
CRAFT and INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL.
Case No. f1-CA-1681. January 14, 1955
Decision and Order
On April 15, 1954, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his
Intermediate Report 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial
action. Thereafter, following the Board's promulgation of its new
jurisdictional policy, the General Counsel moved to dismiss the com-
plaint on jurisdictional grounds. The Union filed objections thereto
with a supporting statement. The Board has considered the juris-
dictional issue in the case and finds merit in the General Counsel's
motion that the complaint be dismissed.
Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of women's wearing
apparel in the State of California. The record shows that Respond-
ents receive from Relax-Slax, another California firm, materials which
1 There are two Intermediate Reports. The first, dictated Into the record, was not con-
sidered by the Board as an Intermediate Report for purposes of Section 102.45 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations.
111 NLRB No. 32.