Valley Cabinet and Manufacturing, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 666 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Valley Cabinet - and Manufacturing, Inc. -and Chauf-
feurs,' T eamsters and Helpers ' Local 150, Interna-
tion'al- Brotherhood of Teamsters,` Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen- "& -Helpers of America.' Cases
20-CA-6O44 an'd 20-CA-6122 '-
August 16, 1971
DECISION AND, ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On March 4, 1971, Trial Exami°ner`Stanley' Gilbert
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had not engaged in the
alleged unfair labor practices and recommending that
the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth
in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the General Counsel filed exceptions and a support-
ing brief and the Respondent file a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
and in Case .20-CA-61=22.on,May 26, l970, the- consolidat-
ed complaint herein was , issued on August 27,1970.
Thee complaint alleges that Valley Cabinet Manufactur-
ing, Inc ., hereinafter referred to as', the Company or the
Respondent, violated Section' 8(A)(3)'and`(1)of the Act by
discharging Robert Fosteron=April 14, 1970, and James ^R.
Levy" on May 12, 1970. Respondent , by its answer, denies
that theaforementioned ` dischar̀ges"Were -violative ' of the
Act as alleged in the complaint.
'Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in 'Sacramento,
California, on'November 5,; 1970,' before me.,Appearances'
were entered on behalf (if-the General Counsel and
Respondent, but no jappearance ' was entered oa behalf of
the Charging Party. Briefs were received from General
Counsel and the Respondent within the'"time' designated
-therefor.
Upon the entire record2 in this proceeding and my
observation of the witnesses as they testified , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
At all times material herein, Respondent, a California
corporation with a place of business at North Highlands,
California, has been engaged in the business of manufac-
turing cabinets. During the calendar year preceding the
issuance of the complaint , Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, purchased lumber
valued in excess of $50 ,000 from suppliers in the State of
California who obtained said lumber directly from sources
outside the State of California.
At all times material herein , Respondent has been an
employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in
its entirety.
1 The Trial Examiner's inadvertent factual error in his findings to the
effect that Davis notified Foster that Millman had requested his discharge
and that he was terminated in the afternoon of "April 24" is hereby
corrected to read "April 14."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT, Trial Examiner : Based on a charge
filed by Chauffeurs , Teamsters and Helpers Local 150,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, hereinafter referred
to as the Teamsters, in Case 20-CA-6044 on April 22, 1970,
3 Although his name is spelled "Levi" in the complaint, it appears from
the transcript of the hearing that the name is spelled as above indicated.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
At all times material herein, the Teamsters has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
At all times material herein, Millmen's Local # 1618,
affiliated with the Sacramento Area District Council of
Carpenters, chartered by the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, hereinafter referred to
as the Millmen's, has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The two principal issues involved in this proceeding are
whether the discharge of Foster on April 14,1970, and the
discharge of Levy on May 12, 1970, violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. No other allegations of violations of the
Act are set forth in the complaint, and in his brief the
General Counsel does not contend that Respondent
committed any other unfair labor practices.
2 General Counsel filed a motion to correct the transcript in certain
particulars. Said motion is unopposed and is hereby granted.
192 NLRB No. 94
VALLEY CABINET AND MFG., INC. 667
..A. The Discharge of Foster
As above stated, Foster was discharged on April 14, _1970.
He- had been employed by Respondent for approximately
14 months prior " to, his -discharge. It appears from his
uncontradicted and credited testimony that 80 percent of
his working time was spent in delivering cabinets by truck
to Respondent's customers, and in loading and unloading
the trucks. It also appears that on some :occasions he
repaired cabinets which were damaged in transit. It further
appears that the remaining 20 percent of his time was spent
in doing odd jobs in Respondent's warehouse.
It is undisputed that on March 23, 1970, he and Don
Silva, the only other employee primarily engaged, at that
time, in delivering cabinets, 3 signed authorization cards for
the Teamsters. On April,9.,: 1970, the Teamsters filed a
petition,in Case 20-RC-9295-seeking to represent a unit "of
truck drivers" of Respondent which apparently would have
been comprised of Foster and Silva. On April; 7, 1970, the
Teamsters sent -4 telegram to Respondent which stated that
it had been authorized -by A majority- of the drivers to
represent them for -bargaining purposes, and requested a
meeting with Respondent.
General Counsel, contends that Foster was ;discharged
because , of his-interest in; having theTeamsters represent
him. Respondent, contends that he was discharged at the
request of the Millnren's pursuant, to a valid union-security
clause in, its collective-bargaining agreement with Respon-
dent.
Foster testifiedl. to a_conversation hey-had with, Robert
Davis, president of Respondent, , on or about March 25,
1970, His testimony with, respect, to, said conversation,
which wassuncontradictedkand is credited, is as follows:
,T[m Warless: I just asked him about the Teamsters
and he said, "I ,don't want you to join .the Teamsters,. I
want you to join the Millmen's." That was it. He walked
off and didn'ttalk to me too much.
Foster testified tox asecond conversation, on or, about April
7, _1970, with, Davis which was in the presence of a fellow
employee, Stanley Dolce, and, in part, in the presence of
Silva. His,,testimony with respect to the conversation is
uncontradcted,,and„is-credited.It., appears from his said
testimony that Davis approached him with the aforemen-
tioned telegram ,sent, by the Teamsters to the Respondent,,
and thatDavis' asked him about it., lie further testified as
follows to the, ensuing;conversation:
I explained to him-Don" Silva and I had gone down
and signed the cardforthe,Teamsters. He told me if you
were goiiiggto- join the Teamsters, I.cannotuseyou, and,
-Don Silva walked up after-that, and then he said he
would give us the two, hundred dollars for the Millmen's
and 'we would have to give IOU's so the other guys
wouldn't get upset about giving us money.
S lva`'s testimony corroborates that of Foster that Davis
offered fo 'loaxi them the. $200' required to join the
Millmen's, and added that _Davis- said that' "in a year or so
he'll just t̀ear= it [the. IOU]' up'"It'appears that Foster and
Silva indicated their willingness to-accept his offer at that,
time. 'Dolce also testified` to:the incident and his testimony,
3 Silva's uncontradicted 'testimony is credited that he spent 75 percent of
his time delivering cabinets.
was substantially corroborative of-that of Foster and-Silva.
Davis was not questioned about the incident, but didtestify
that he offered a number of the employees a loan of the
$200 required to join the Millmen's,,-,because Tpon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon`
the entire record in the case, I mike the following:
CoNCLusIONs OF LAW
1. At all times material herein, Respondent has been. an
employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce within the in eaningof Section 2(2), (6), and. (7)^
of the Act.
2. The Teamsters, and the _ Millmen's, at all times-
material herein, were labor -or apmtions, , thin the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. General Counsel has ,failed to prove by a preponder-
ance of the evidence 'the allegation in the, complaint that
Respondent violated.Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act by
its discharge of Foster on,April 14,1970.
4. General Counsel has failed 'to prove by , a,preponder-
ance of the evidence the allegation in the complaint ,that"
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)yand (l) of'the Act by
its discharge of Levy 'on May 12, 1970.
Upon the foregoing (
indm
' fact, conclusions of law,
and 'the entire record, a d, pu t to oSection 1_0(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:'
ORDER
The complaint herein should be ,, and is hereby, dismissed
in its entirety.