United Inventories of Dallas

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1979

239 N.L.R.B. 1414 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS
United
Magill. 23-(314-6463 Sec-
19,
following:
FACT
corporatiorl princi-
riod
$50,000 Safeway
PENELLO Safeway IS
Magill, individ-
ual, riod. Safeway
that Respon- $50,000
Inc..'
practices
8(a)(l) National points
Safeway ~n
of $500.000. United
material herein an 111
Schlezinger in
1977: General 2(6) Acr.
full 11. I :NFAIR
Magill
Madlock participathg lo
wage 8(a)(l)
' at hearme. of Act.
OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inventories of Dallas, Inc. and W. Marshall
Case

January
1979
ORDER
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its final Order
herein the said Proposed Decision and Order.
By direction of the Board: George A. Leet, Associate
Executive Secretary.
November 22, 1978
PROPOSED DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS

A ND TRUESDALE

On April 4, 1977, W. Marshall an
filed the charge in this proceeding. A complaint
was issued on May 18, 1977, alleging
dent, United Inventories of Dallas, has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
within the meaning of Section of the
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondent filed
an answer to the complaint denying the commission
of the alleged unfair labor practrces.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before
Administrative Law Judge Anne F.
Houston, Texas, on August 9, The
Counsel and Respondent were represented by coun-
sel. All parties were afforded opportunity to be
heard, to present oral and written evidence. and to
examine and cross-examine witnesses.
On July 26, 1978, the Chief Administrative Law
Judge informed the parties that Administrative Law
The name of Respondent appears as amended the
Judge Schlezinger was gravely ill, and would be un-
able to issue a Decision within the meaning of
tion 102.36 of the Board's Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended. The
FINDINGS OF
I . BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Texas having its
pal office and place of business in Dallas, Texas, is
engaged in the business of physically inventorying
retail stores. During a representative 12-month pe-
prior to the hearing, Respondent performed ser-
vices valued in excess of for Stores.
Incorporated. at its stores in Texas. Stores
engaged in the operation of retail stores in several
cities throughout the State of Texas. During its last
fiscal year preceding the hearing, a representative re-
Stores purchased goods and materials
valued in excess of from firms located out-
side the State of Texas, which goods and materials
were shipped directly to Safeway's stores in Texas
from located outside the State of Texas. Dur-
ing the same period, Stores made sales
excess We therefore find that
Inventories of Dallas. Inc., is now, and at all times
has been, employer engaged
commerce and in operations affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section and (7) of the
THE ALLEGED LABOR PRACTICES
The General Counsel contends that Respondent
discharged employees W. Marshall and Ben-
ny for in a concerted effort
obtain a increase, thus violating Section
the
Madlock Respon-
Safeway Madlock
Allstin, man-
ager
lie, Madlock, Magill
Magill
teing
Magill,
increases Mad-
happened again.3 Madlock Magill
accoun re-
Magill Ste-
mem- L,ambert
Madlock flred
f(1r Magill, Magill
:lot follow-
Madloc Magill Magill
Lam-
f o ~ Ste- Magill Magill
Lam,ert
Magill
crew
Stepher s es- Magill
sentiall;/ Magill
could
meplace Ste- Magill
r1:plied Safeway Magill
Magill
Lam- was
Houstoll
Magill
Madlock
Ste- Magill
wggestion Madlock
Magill
Magill Madlock
z.ccept
<,
Magill Madlock
< termina- a
tion,'
cheatinl, Ste-
the
--
datrs hereinafrer othcrwlse ~nd~cated .
' "pre\hured.' demanding a raise within hours prior to going
by ralse l o 5180 prev~ou:, SO to fulf i l l
testimony considered the job and there would be a work stoppage with no been Larnbert q u ~ t ~n clrcurnstances.
m
UNITED INVENTORIES OF DALLAS, INC. 1415
Mag ill and were employed by
dent as two of four members of a crew assigned to
physically inventory stores in the Houston
and Texas, areas. James Stephens was
of the crew. Stephens testified that in January
1977 and Ronald Lambert. president
of Respondent, met in Dallas, at Lambert's request.
According to Stephens, they discussed the amount of
work performed by the crew, and Lambert
stated .hat he did not like being pressured for pay
and that he would replace the entire crew if
it confirmed Stephens'
: of this conversation in all important
spects.
Stephens also stated at the hearing that the
bers of the crew met in February and discussed the
need a salary increase. They decided that they
would perform their inventory work the
ing Sunday unless such a raise was forthcoming.
k and corroborated this testimony and
added .hat they asked Stephens to approach
bert the raise on behalf of the entire crew.
phens stated that he telephoned Lambert and told
him that he. Stephens, thought that all the members
of the should receive $225 per week, the same as
was paid, because they were all doing
the same work. Lambert told Stephens that
he promise Stephens $225 per week but that he
would the other three crew members.
phens that he would not be interested in such
an arrangement. testified that Stephens gave
him the same account of his conversation with
bert shortly after it occurred.
Stephens further testified that Lambert telephoned
him on March 31 and told him that he was coming to
from Dallas to speak to Stephens. Stephens
and Lanbert met at the Houston airport. Lambert
told Stephens that he was there to fire and
that he intended to reduce wages to $200 per week
and to replace Stephens as crew manager. At
phens' Stephens, Lambert, and
met later the same evening. Lambert announced that
he would "reinstate" and if they
would reductions in pay to $200 per week.
Madloc according to Stephens. refused to take the
wage cut, and Stephens stated that he would "quit" if
Madloc were fired. Concerning his own
Stephens testified that Lambert mentioned
on expenses as a reason for it, of which
All referred to are in 1977. unless

Lambert. so Stephens testified. also referred lo having been

the creu for a pay
per week the year.
I t is n o clear from Stephens' whether he himself
to have fired by or to have the
phens stated he had no knowledge. Lambert also said
he did not like being pressured for wage increases.
testified that Lambert told him at the meet-
ing that he. Lambert, had come to Houston to fire
him but that Stephens could continue working for
him and that could also if he would take a
decrease in wages.
At the hearing stated that he had a conver-
sation with Stephens on April I , the next day. Ste-
phens, according to told him that Lambert
had come to Houston the previous day to fire
lock but that Lambert had said could contin-
ue to work if he would accept a reduction in salary to
$200 per week. Stephens told that he,
phens, had informed that he would not stay
if were but that he could not speak for
who was not present. stated he tried to
reach Lambert by telephone on April 2, but succeed-
ed only in reaching a babysitter at his home. The
babysitter told that Lambert had left a mes-
sage saying he was fired. The following day, April 3,
talked to Lambert on the telephone.
protested to that he did not like being dis-
charged by Lambert's babysitter. said he told
Lambert that he better not catch him on the street,
and Lambert replied that would never work
for United again. told Lambert he did not
want to work for him again. Twenty minutes after
the conversation ended, and Lambert saw
each other at a store. apologized to
Lambert for having lost his temper in the telephone
conversation but said he angry about how he
had been fired and wanted to know what was going
on. Lambert responded that he did not like the way
the crew had approached him for a raise, and stated
he could not afford to pay the crew members what
they were asking. said he told Lambert that
that should have been expalined to Stephens at the
time, but Lambert said it was none of Stephens' busi-
ness. asked Lambert for written reasons for
his discharge. Lambert at first refused to supply such
reasons but later agreed. However, never re-
ceived a written statement of the reasons for his ter-
mination.
Respondent took the position at the hearing that
and were discharged for reasons
having nothing to do with their concerted activity in
seeking an increase in wages. However, it must be
noted that in its answer to the complaint Respondent
stated the following as an "affirmative defense":
"Affirmatively Respondent would show that
Charging Party was a part of wildcat labor practices
the job that the Respondent had no way
Magill Madlock.
tion
collec- Magill
Magill
Magill Madlock Magill
Magill,
Madlock Madlock Magill
Safeway
forms Safeway
Magill
expen- Safeway
Magill
Magill Madlock
Magill backroom
tho
spa.!
apparent.1~
ascer-
Madlock
12,
Magill.
Magiil
Magill
Madlock
Magill Madlock
Magill Madlock
Madlock com-
Madlock
Madlock Magill
.4rr<.rtrff