U.S. Chaircraft, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1961

132 N.L.R.B. 922 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and not to subsequent handbilling of Furr 's stores which has been treated previously.
I find , as alleged by the complaint , that Respondent has induced and encouraged
individuals employed by Owl Drug Company and Furr's to cease handling or using
Lohman products with an object of forcing those two concerns to cease using or
selling Lohman products and to cease doing business with Lohman , that Respondent
has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)
(4) (1) (B) of the Act, and that Respondent has not otherwise engaged in unfair labor
practices.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations 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 com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local 537 , is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By inducing or encouraging individuals employed by persons other than Lohman
Sales Company to refuse to use or handle goods distributed by said Lohman with
an object of forcing or requiring such other persons to cease using , selling, handling,
or dealing in the products of said Lohman , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i ) (B) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not otherwise engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) ( B) or 8 ( b) (4) (ii ) (B) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
U.S. Chaircraft, Inc. and Industrial Workers Federation of
Labor, Local 886, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-6588. August
10, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 5, 1960, Industrial Workers Federation of Labor, Local
886, herein called Petitioner, filed a petition in the above-entitled
case. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner entered into an
agreement for consent election. Pursuant thereto an election was
held, as a result of which the Petitioner was certified August 22, 1960.
On February 15, 1961, Local 976, International Union, Allied In-
dustrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 976,
filed a motion to vacate the election and certification, upon the ground
that the Employer and the Petitioner failed to inform the Regional
Director that Local 976 had previously demanded recognition as the
bargaining agent of the employees and was or may have been in-
terested in the case.
132 NLRB No.'82.
BALLENTINE PACKING COMPANY, INC. 923
In its statement in answer to the motion, the Employer admits that
it purposely refrained from disclosing Local 976 as an interested
party, although it also admits that Local 976 made a demand for
recognition as the bargaining agent for the same employees involved
in the consent election. It assigns as its reason for this omission that
it regarded Local 976 as having abandoned its, representation claim.
The Petitioner also filed an opposition to the motion.
The Board i has considered Local 976's motion, and the answers of
the Employer and the Petitioner, and finds merit in the motion. The
Employer had a duty to inform the Regional Director of any claims
to representation of which it was aware. It is for the Regional Direc-
tor or the Board, and not the parties, to determine whether a claim
has sufficient validity or vitality to require that notice of the pro-
ceeding be given to the claimant and an opportunity be given to
be placed on the ballot in any consent election which may be held'
As a result of the Employer's omission , Local 976 was never notified
of the proceedings nor afforded an opportunity to appear on the
ballot. Under the circumstances, the election cannot be said to reflect
fairly the desires of the employees. We shall accordingly set aside
the election and vacate the certification. We shall also remand the
case to the Regional Director for such further action as may be appro-
priate in the circumstances.
[The Board vacated the election and certification and remanded
the proceeding to the Regional Director for such action as may be ap-
propriate in the circumstances.]
1 Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated
its powers herein to a three-member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers
and Brown]. -
2 See So+nerv2lie Iron Works, Inc , 117 NLRB 1702.
Ballentine Packing Company, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner
Ballentine Packing Company, Inc. and Local 71, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Petitioner . Cases Nos. 11-RC-1370 and
11-RC-1371. August 10, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held' before
'The captioned cases were consolidated for hearing by order of the, Regional Director
dated August 18, 1960
132 NLRB No. 75.