Union Carbide and Carbon Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 2184 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

2184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By engaging in picketing the premises of Yankees , called Yankee Stadium and
the premises of Parkway called rink or Parkway Arena in connection with their
dispute with Gotham the Respondents have induced and encouraged the employees of
Yankees and Parkway and various employees of employers doing business with Yan-
kees and Parkway and of other employers to engage in, strikes or concerted re-
fusals in the course of their employment to use, process, transport , or otherwise
handle or work on goods, articles , materials , or commodities , or to perform services
for their respective employers , an object of Respondents ' conduct being to force or
require said River and Parkway to cease doing business with Gotham , and to force
or require the other employers who normally do business with River and Parkway, to
cease doing business with River or Parkway , the Respondents (Local 802 and its
agent, Al Manuti ), have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) of the Act.
5. 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.]
NATIONAL CARBON COMPANY, A DIVISION OF UNION CARBIDE AND CAR-
BON CORPORATION (EDGEWATER WORKS) and UNITED GAS, COKE AND
CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 8-CA-995. De-
cember 3011954
Decision and Order
On August 26, 1954, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermedi-
ate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent's request for oral
argument is hereby denied as the record, including the exceptions and
brief, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial
Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the fol-
lowing additions :
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had refused to
bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1)
of the Act. The Respondent admits that it had refused to bargain
with the Union, but contends that the Board made an erroneous de-
termination of the appropriate unit in the representation proceeding.'
The Respondent further contends that the Trial Examiner erred in
adopting the Board's findings, and in refusing to permit the Respond-
ent to adduce further evidence with respect to them. We have con-
sidered the Respondent's contentions and offers of proof and find them
to be without merit.
1 National Carbon Company, a Division of Union Carbide and Carbon Clorporation (Edge-
water TVorks ), 107 NLRB 1486.
110 NLRB No. 270.
NATIONAL CARBON COMPANY 2185,
At the hearing in this case, the Respondent for the first time chal-
lenged the Board's unit finding on the ground that some of the em-
ployees included in the unit are not in fact maintenance employees.
In its two motions for reconsideration filed with the Board before the
election, which the Board denied, Respondent made no attempt to raise
this question or request that the record be reopened to clarify this
point 2 Nor did the Respondent attempt to challenge these employees
at the election on the ground that they are not maintenance employees,
and therefore not properly included in the unit. Accordingly, we
find that the Respondent is precluded from raising this issue for the
first time at this stage of the proceeding.3 As to the Respondent's
other contentions regarding the Board's unit determination, it has
been the Board's carefully considered and long established policy,
sanctioned by the courts, that in cases involving an alleged refusal to
bargain, the Board will not permit issues disposed of in earlier repre-
sentation proceedings to be relitigated unless there is evidence which
was newly discovered or not in Respondent's possession at the time of
the earlier proceeding' It is therefore clear, and we find, contrary
to the Respondent's contention, that the unit issue is not properly the
subject of relitigation in the instant proceeding, and that the Trial Ex-
aminer was entitled, as a matter of law, to accord conclusive effect to
the Board's prior unit determination.' For the same reasons, we find
no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Intermediate Report
does not comply with the provisions of Section 8 (b) of the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act or the Board's Rules and Regulations, because
it does not state the reasons or basis for the Trial Examiner's findings
and conclusions as to the appropriate bargaining unit.,;
2 The Respondent ' s fiist motion for ieconsidcration of the Boaid's unit finding was pred-
icated on the grounds that ( 1) the Petitioner did not prove that it is a union that tradi-
tionally devotes itself to the special interests of employees in the unit established by
the Boaid , and (2 ) the Board gave contiollmg weight to the Petitioner 's extent of organi-
zation in making its unit determination In its second motion for reconsideration, the
Respondent requested oppoitunity to show that the principles and ciiteua relating to
craft severance and fragmentation of bargaining units set out in American Potash and
Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418 , are applicable to cases where there is no existing
bargaining unit
3N L. R B v West Kentucky Coal Co , 152 F 2d 198 , 200-201 (C. A. 6), cert. denied
328 U S 866 ; Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, 109 NLRB 1079
4 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v N . L R. B, 313 U. S . 146, 157-158, 161-162; N L R B.
v. West Kentucky Coal Co ., 152 F. 2d 198 , 200-201 ( C. A. 6), cert. denied 328 U. S. 866;
N L R B. v Worcester Woolen Mills Coip, 170 F. 2d 13, 16 (C A 1 ), cert denied 336
U. S. 903, Allis-Chalmers Mfg Co. v. N L. R. B., 162 F 2d 435, 440-441 (C A. 7) ;
N. L. R B. v. Botany Worsted Mills, 133 F 2d 876, 882 (C A. 3), ceit. denied 319 U. S.
751 ; West Texas Utilities Company , 106 NLRB 859
5 Harris Lanagenberg Hat Co v Al. L. R. B , 216 F 2d 146 (C. A 8), enfg 107 NLRB
961; Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, 109 NLRB 1079 , Esquii e, Inc, Cor-
onet Instructional Films Division , 109 NLRB 530; The Baker and Taylor Co., 109 NLRB
245, Claslostat Manufacturing Company , Inc, 107 NLRB 775, Phillips Peti oleum Co,
100 NLRB 684 , 686-687, enfd . 206 F . 2d 26, 30 ( C. A. 5) ; Conlon Brothers Manufactur-
ing Company , 88 NLRB 107 , 111, enfd 187 F. 2d 329 ( C. A. 7) , S H. Kress and Company,
88 NLRB 292, 297, enfd. 194 F 2d 444, 446 (C. A 6)
s American Finishing Company, 90 NLRB 1786, 1794-1795; Clark Shoe Company, 88
NLRB 989.
2186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by refusing
to bargain with the Union the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5)
and (1) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
,of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, National Carbon
Company, a Division of Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation
(Edgewater Works), Cleveland, Ohio, and its officers, agents, suc-
,cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Gas, Coke and
Chemical Workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative
of all its maintenance employees, including machinists, millwrights,
electricians, pipefitters, welders, carpenters, sheet metal men, laborers,
rolling stock mechanics, painters, tool and die makers, tool crib at-
tendants, die setters, premium grinders, die grinders, constant tem-
perature operators, engineers, and their respective group leaders,
trainees, and helpers, but excluding all other employees, professional,
'confidential and office-clerical employees, guards, and supervisors,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Gas, Coke and
'Chemical Workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative
,of the employees in the bargaining unit hereinabove described, with
respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment, and, in the event that an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Edgewater Works plant copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix A." I Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted
by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to the employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by other material.
T In the event that this Order is enforced by a 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."
NATIONAL CARBON COMPANY 2187
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with United Gas,
Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described
below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is :
All maintenance employees, including machinists, mill-
wrights, electricians, pipefitters, welders, carpenters, sheet
metal men, laborers, rolling stock mechanics, painters, tool
and die makers, tool crib attendants, die setters, premium
grinders, die grinders, constant temperature operators, sta-
tionary engineers, and their respective group leaders,
trainees, and helpers, but excluding all other employees,
professional, confidential, and office-clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
NATIONAL CARBON COMPANY, A DIVISION OF
UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORA-
TION (EDGEWATER WORKS),
Employer.
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 and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO,
herein called the Union, the General Counsel by the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region (Cleveland , Ohio ), of the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the
Board , issued his complaint, dated May 25, 1954, against National Carbon Company,
a Division of Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation ( Edgewater Works ), herein
2188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the'Labor Management Relations Act, 1947,
61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the charge together
with notices of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that on
or about April 6, 1954, the Union was certified by the Board as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of the Respondent's employees in a unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining which the Board had previously found appropriate for that purpose.
Thereafter the Union requested the Respondent to bargain with it as the certified
representative of the employees on May 4 and 11, 1954, and that on or about May 4
and 11, 1954, Respondent did refuse and continues to refuse to bargain with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit for the reason
that said unit is "an inappropriate unit and not in accordance with the law," not-
withstanding the fact that the Board found, after hearing, "that said unit was ap-
propriate," and that by such acts the Respondent did engage in and is thereby en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8 (a) (1) and (5)
and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
On or about June 16, 1954, the Respondent filed its answer to the complaint in
which it admits certain jurisdictional allegations in the complaint, but denies that the
unit alleged to be appropriate in the complaint is such, and upon this premise there-
after denied the commission of any of the alleged unfair labor practices, but by way of
confession and avoidance admits that the Board certified the Union as the exclusive
bargaining agent of its employees in a unit found appropriate by the Board after a
hearing was had, and an election held under the auspices of the Regional Director
for the Eighth Region. It further admits that the Union requested it to bargain for
the purposes of negotiating a collective-bargaining contract and that it refused to do
so for the reasons set forth in a letter to the Union dated May 10, 1954, which it em-
bodied in its answer. Since this letter well states the Respondent's position, it is
set forth below in its entirety:
JOHN E. PHILLIPS , International Representative
United Gas, Coke, and Chemical Workers of America
1000 Walnut Avenue, Room 204
Cleveland 14, Ohio
May 10, 1954.
DEAR SIR: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1954.
As you are well aware, the Company considers the bargaining unit called for
in the National Labor Relations Board's decision of March 4, 1954 to be an
inappropriate unit and not in accordance with the law.
As you also know, we have done everything in our power to bring this to
the attention of the Labor Board with a view to persuading the Board, without the
necessity of having the question reviewed by the courts, that the Board should
itself recognize that the unit is inappropriate.
In view of the Board's decision, however, that the unit is an appropriate
one, the Company is left with no alternative but to seek a review in the courts
of the Board's decision, and this the Company is prepared to do.
Accordingly, the Company is writing you at this time to inform you that for the
reason above given, for that reason only and entirely as a procedural matter, it is
necessary that we refrain from any collective bargaining with the Union you
represent for the employees in the unit established by the National Labor
Relations Board unless as a result of court review the Board's decision is
sustained.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) V. D. Kleinsmith
V. D. KLEINSMIIH,
Superintendent.
The answer then goes on and alleges an affirmative defense that:
• V. Affirmatively alleges that, in determining as appropriate the unit described
in the paragraph of the complaint numbered "5," the Board:
(a) Disregarded the provisions of Section 9 of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended (hereinafter called the "Act"), and in doing so,
acted in violation of said provisions;
(b) Disregarded said provisions of the Act as interpreted by the Board
with reference to the appropriateness of said unit in view of the integration
of operations in Respondent's Edgewater Works; in view of the history
NATIONAL CARBON COMPANY 2189
of bargaining in Respondent's Edgewater Works; in view of the history of
bargaining in other plants of Respondent and in plants of other Divisions
of Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation, in view of the history of
bargaining in the industry; and in view of the inappropriate nature of the
unit sought to be established by the Union which type or character of unit
the Union does not traditionally or customarily represent.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on June 28, 1954, at Cleveland, Ohio,
before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Respondent,
and the Union were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties. At the onset of the hearing Benjamin C. Sigal,
counsel for the Union, submitted to the Trial Examiner for his consideration a
petition to revoke a subpena duces tecum served upon Elwood P. Swisher, president
of the International Union to appear before the Trial Examiner at the hearing
herein, and bring with him and produce the following documents:
Such union records, collective bargaining contracts and other documents as
will show composition of bargaining units traditionally and customarily repre-
sented by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, and its
local affiliates throughout the United States of America.
The petition to revoke was predicated primarily upon the following: (1) The
subpena is indefinite and does not describe particularly the evidence whose produc-
tion it required; (2) the evidence requested was irrelevant and immaterial to any
of the issues raised by the pleadings herein; (3) the documents requested to be
produced in the subpena were so voluminous and of such a nature that their pro-
duction would seriously interfere with and hamper the Union in the conduct of its
day-to-day affairs; and (4) the subpena requires the production of numerous docu-
ments that were neither in the possession of President Swisher nor under his control.
After due consideration, and a perusal of the pleadings and other documentary
evidence then before him, the Trial Examiner granted the motion to revoke the
subpena, primarily on the grounds that the material requested in the subpena was
not germane to the issues raised by the pleadings, and because of previous deter-
minations by the Board as regards the appropriateness of the unit, which was the
basis for the request for the subpena in the first instance.
At the close of the hearing all parties orally stated their respective positions to
the record. All were advised of their rights to file proposed findings of fact and/or
conclusions of law with briefs in support thereof. Only the Respondent availed
itself of this opportunity and filed a brief with the Trial Examiner on or about
August 2, 1954.
Upon the entire record of the case the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, the Respondent concedes, and the Board has previously
found in Case No. 8-RC-2088, that the Respondent, National Carbon Company,
a Division of Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation (Edgewater Works), is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent is a New York corporation and
engaged at its Edgewater Works in Cleveland, Ohio, in the manufacture of dry
batteries. The Edgewater division, with which we are primarily concerned herein,
has other plants in Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, Vermont, Iowa, North Carolina,
and other States and annually ships products outside the State of Ohio valued in
excess of $500,000, and annually causes to be shipped into the State of Ohio, to its
Edgewater Works, from points outside the State of Ohio, materials valued in excess
of $500,000.
In view of the foregoing, the Trial Examiner finds that the Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The issues with which we are concerned herein stem from the Board's Decision
and Direction of Election in Case No. 8-RC-2088,1 herein referred to as the "R"
case, dated March 4, 1954, in which it found the following to be an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining:
all maintenance employees, . . including machinists, millwrights, elec-
tricians, pipefitters, welders, carpenters, sheet metal men, laborers, rolling stock
mechanics, painters, tool and die makers, tool crib attendants, diesetters, pre-
mium grinders, die grinders, constant temperature operators, engineers, and
their respective group leaders, trainees, and helpers, but excluding all other
employees, professional, confidential, and office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors .. .
Thereafter on March 15, 1954, the Respondent filed a petition for a further
hearing in the "R" case and a reconsideration of the Board's decision therein. At
the same time it also filed a motion for a stay of the election directed in the "R"
proceeding pending determination of its petition for reconsideration.
As the Trial Examiner sees it, the Respondent takes the position that the Board's.
determination of the unit in the "R" case was erroneous, and predicated its motion
for reconsideration on the reasoning of the Board in the American Potash and
Chemical Corporation case, 107 NLRB 1418, which was rendered on March 1,
1954, 3 days before the Board's decision in the "R" case at issue here. The Board
denied the Respondent's petition and in its "Order Denying Petition and Motion,"
dated March 18, 1954, commented as follows:
2 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, on which the
Employer relies deals only with the question of severance case. The Board,
as stated in its decision, did not give controlling weight to the Petitioner's
extent of organization.
On March 25, 1954, the Respondent filed a second petition for further hearing and
reconsideration and for postponement of the directed election in the "R" case On
March 29, 1954, the Board again denied it "on the ground that it is lacking in merit,
and presents no issues which were not previously considered by the Board." In its
order denying the petition the Board reiterated its position as regards the application
of the principles enunciated in the American Potash case to the issues in the "R"
case involved here.
After the aforementioned petitions for reconsideration were disposed of, the Re-
gional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio) conducted an election on
March 30, 1954, among the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit in
which a majority of the employees selected the Union as their bargaining represen-
tative. Thereafter, on April 6, 1954, the Union was certified by the Board as the
exclusive bargaining representative of said employees in the unit found appropriate
in Case No. 8-RC-2088.
As indicated above in the "Statement of the Case" the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain with it as the certified representative of the employees in
the unit found by the Board to be appropriate in the "R" case, on at least two occa-
sions, May 4 and 11, 1954, and on each occasion the Respondent has refused to do,
so, for the reasons set forth in its answer as described above in that section of this
report entitled "Statement of the Case."
At the hearing herein the Respondent reiterated the position it took in the "R"
proceedings that the unit found appropriate by the Board was erroneous; that the
Board by so finding and thereafter by refusing to grant its petitions for reconsidera-
tion of its finding in the "R" proceeding as regards the appropriate unit, acted in an
arbitrary and capricious manner; and that in such circumstances it was under no
duty to bargain with the Union.
In support of its position at the hearing herein, the Respondent offered the testi-
mony of Lee Hosfield, supervisor of its machine development group. Hosfield's
testimony was offered obviously for the purpose of relitigating the appropriateness
of the unit. The General Counsel objected to any and all testimony in this regard
on the ground that it was irrelevant and immaterial to the issues herein. The Trial
Examiner sustained the objection, and an exception to his ruling was made by the
Respondent. Thereafter the Respondent proffered Hosfield's testimony for the record
which was likewise rejected by the Trial Examiner. His ruling in this regard was
1 107 NLRB 1486. The parties stipulated and agreed at the hearing herein that the
entire record in the representation proceeding be made a part of record in this proceeding.
NATIONAL CARBON COMPANY 2191
predicated on the theory that matters concerning issues which were before the Board
in the "R" case had been fully litigated and were not germane to the issues herem.2
In its answer at the hearing herein and in its brief the Respondent has clearly
indicated that it anticipates an adverse finding by the Board in this proceeding and in
effect is requesting an opportunity for a review of the Board's position by the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals.3
In view of all the foregoing the Trial Examiner finds that by the conduct described
above the Respondent has engaged in a course of conduct violative of Section 8 (a)
(5) and ( 1) of the Act.
The Trial Examiner also finds, in accordance with the Board 's prior determination
in Case No . 8-RC-2088, that the unit found appropriate therein and which has been
set forth heremabove is appropriate within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the
Act? It is further found, in accordance with the Board 's prior determination, that
the Union was on April 6, 1954, and at all times material thereafter has been the
exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent 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 the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above -described appropriate
unit, it will be recommended that the Respondent bargain collectively with the
Union, upon request, as the statutory representative of the employees in that unit,
and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
Since the record does not reveal any evidence that the Respondent has engaged
in any other unfair labor practices , and since it appears that the refusal to bargain by
the Respondent is based upon its desire to obtain review by the Board of the unit
finding, rather than a fundamental attitude of opposition to the objectives of the
Act, it will be recommended merely that the Respondent cease and desist from re-
fusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in
the above-described unit, and from in any manner interfering with the efforts of the
Union to bargain collectively on their behalf.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Gas , Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All maintenance employees , including machinists, millwrights , electricians,
pipefitters , welders, carpenters , sheet metal men, laborers , rolling stock mechanics,
painters , tool and die makers, tool crib attendants , diesetters , premium grinders, die
grinders , constant temperature operators , engineers , and their respective group lead-
ers, trainees , and helpers , but excluding all other employees , professional, confiden-
tial, and office clerical employees , guards, and supervisors , constitute and at all times
material herein have constituted , a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Gas , Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO , was on April 6,
1954 , and has been at all times material thereafter , the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the unit above described for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 ( a) of the Act.
2 See Superior Sleeprete Corporation, 109 NLRB 322 , and cases cited therein.
3 See the Respondent 's brief.
See that section of this report entitled " Statement of the Case."
'2192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By refusing on May 4 and 11, 1954, and thereafter to bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the unit above described , the Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By said refusal to bargain the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) 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.]
SALES DRIVERS, HELPERS & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DRIVERS, LOCAL
UNION 859, OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL and Associ-
ATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC., GEORGIA BRANCH.
,Case No. 10-CC49. December 30, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a charge duly filed on June 28, 1954, by Associated General
Contractors of America, Inc., Georgia Branch, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel,
by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, issued a complaint
dated July 28, 1954, against Sales Drivers, Helpers & Building Con-
struction Drivers, Local Union 859, of International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL,
hereinafter referred to as Respondent, alleging that it has violated Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
by inducing and encouraging employees of various employers to engage
in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to
use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any
service, with an object of forcing such employers to cease doing busi-
ness with Campbell Coal Company, hereinafter referred to as Camp-
bell. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served
on the Respondent on or about July 28, 1954. On August 6, 1954, the
Respondent filed its answer to the complaint.
Thereafter, on September 9, 1954, the parties entered into a stipu-
lation setting forth an agreed statement of facts. The stipulation
provided that the parties thereby waive their rights to a hearing, to
the taking of testimony before a Trial Examiner of the Board, to is-
suance of an Intermediate Report, and to the filing of exceptions. The
stipulation further provided that, upon such stipulation, the charge,
affidavit of service of the charge complaint, notice of hearing, affidavit
of service of the complaint and notice of hearing, and the Respondent's
110 NLRB No, 274,