Venetian Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 14, 1961

132 N.L.R.B. 182 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
having further found that the Respondent interrogated two of its employees with
respect to their union membership , the Trial Examiner therefore finds that by such
conduct the Respondent crossed the boundary into the prohibited area of interference,
restraint , and coercion in direct violation of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, more particularly Section 8 ( a) (1) thereof.
The Trial Examiner further finds that the Respondent has not engaged in any of
the other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection
with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, 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 Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner recommends that it cease and desist therefrom , and 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, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Arts & Crafts Distributors , Inc., College Park, Maryland , is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Warehouse Employees Union Local 730, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not engaged in any alleged unfair labor practice not spe-
cifically found herein.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Abe Breitbart , Sal Cooper and Others d/b/a Venetian Manu-
facturing Company, and Peptex, Inc., Starlight Trading, Inc.,
& Pat Fashion , Inc.' and Local 917, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-11093. July 14, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Haywood E. Banks, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
'The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing . The partners own all the
stock of Peptex, Inc, Pat Fashion , Inc, and have some interest in Starlight Trading,
Inc, all of which maintain an address at 1370 Broadway , New York Peptex is engaged
in the bookkeeping aspects of the various enterprises ; Pat Fashion is engaged in mer-
chandising Starlight Trading is a separate operation , unrelated to the other enterprises ;
no motion was made to delete its name from the petition.
132 NLRB No. 13.
VENETIAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ETC. 183
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.2
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all floor girls, shippers, pickers, and
packers at the Employer's Brooklyn, New York, warehouse. The
Employer and the Intervenor take the position that the appropriate
unit is multiemployer in scope, comprising all the employer-members
of the National Women's Neckwear and Scarf Association, herein
called the Association.
Venetian Manufacturing Company, herein called Venetian, is a
partnership and maintains a production plant which manufactures
ladies' garments at 740 Broadway, New York. Approximately 4
years before the filing of this petition, Venetian established a shipping
and receiving operation at the Brooklyn warehouse, the subject of the
petition herein. This warehouse receives and then ships merchandise
from the 740 Broadway plant, from contractors, and from Japan
(received by Starlight Trading). Approximately one-third of the
merchandise handled is from the 740 Broadway plant. The original
Brooklyn employees, who are unskilled, and the general manager
came from the 740 Broadway plant when the Brooklyn warehouse
was established. When the general manager at Brooklyn is short-
handed, he obtains help from the 740 Broadway plant.
Venetian has been a member of the Association for 8 to 10 years.
The Association, comprising 105 employer-members, has been bargain-
ing with Local 142, ILGWU, for the production plant employees for
27 years. Venetian states that the Brooklyn employees were not, and
have never been, included in the agreements covering the production
employees. The latest production agreement was executed on Oc-
tober 11, 1960. On the same date, the Association and the ILGWU,
local 142, executed an agreement, supplemental to the production
agreement, covering the categories of employees covered by the instant
petition. However, the effective date agreed upon was November 28,
1960, 2 weeks after the filing of this petition. The supplemental agree-
ment is not advanced as a bar.
We agree with the Employer and the Intervenor that the unit sought
is inappropriate. The Brooklyn warehouse constitutes a part of the
Employer's total production and maintenance operations. In our
opinion, the employees at the Brooklyn warehouse, as sought by the
Petitioner, comprise a miscellaneous grouping of unrepresented em-
ployees lacking any internal homogeneity or cohesiveness. As such,
the unit sought cannot stand alone as an appropriate unit. Moreover,
2 Local 142 , International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, intervened on a contractual
showing of interest.
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Intervenor, which has represented the production workers on a
multiemployer basis over a period of years, seeks to represent the
excluded classifications of employees on the same basis as the produc-
tion workers-' ' Accordingly, as the unit sought does not constitute an
appropriate unit, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and BROWN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
8 Cf. Peninsula Auto Dealers Association of the California Association of Employers,
107 NLRB 56.
Austin Concrete Works, Inc. and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO . Case No. 23-CA-
10.91. July 1T, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 24, 1961, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel (Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-'
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions, and entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications.
1. The Trial Examiner found that Winans was a supervisor and
that the Respondent was responsible for his conduct in interrogating
and threatening its employees. The record establishes that Winans
was employed by the Respondent on a per diem basis for the purpose
of aiding in its campaign in opposition to the Union. Nowhere in the
record is it demonstrated that Winans was invested with supervisory
status or that he held such a relationship to the Respondent's em-
ployees. Consequently, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding
that Winans was a supervisor, but we do hold that the Respondent, be-
cause Winans was in fact an agent of the Respondent and was acting
in that capacity, is responsible for Winans' conduct.
132 NLRB No. 15.