W. A. Stevens & Son

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 51 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

W. A. STEVENS & SON 51
the Union of authority to make future agreements containing such
provisions: We have carefully reviewed the Andor Company and
A. cC P. decisions,4 and are convinced that the reasons advanced in
those decisions for giving immediate effect to an affirmative deauthori-
zation vote are sound. Accordingly, if the employees in this proceed-
ing cast an affirmative deauthorization vote, it shall be taken to mean
that the effectiveness of the agency-shop provisions in the contract
between the Union and the Employer shall be suspended immediately
upon certification to the Union and the Employer of the results of
the election:
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting in part:
Contract-bar principles have evolved out of the Board's continuing
efforts in effectuating congressional policy in terms of industrial
reality.5 The, object of these principles has been to avoid the certain
instability which would have resulted had the Board taken a course
of single-minded literalness in administering the representation pro-
visions of the Act. Legislative history, as the courts have observed,
indicates congressional approval of the Board's exercise of discretion
in this areas My colleagues rely upon Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Company, issued by a divided Board in 1952. So far as appears from
the majority opinion in that proceeding, no attempt was made there
to interpret pertinent statutory provisions in a manner which takes
into account the realities of collective bargaining and which, there-
fore, might promote expressed legislative purpose. I believe that, as
in conventional representation proceedings, the Board is similarly
obliged in deauthorization situations to establish appropriate filing
periods which are meaningfully adapted to viable labor relations
under the Act. Unlike my colleagues, I' would do so here.
4Andor Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 925; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 100
NLRB 1494.
s See, for example, Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995; General Cable
Corporation, 139 NLRB 1123.
6 E.g., N.L.R.B. v. Marcus Trucking Company, Inc ., 286 F. 2d 583, 593 ( C.A. 2) ; Local
1545, United Brotherhood of Carpenters , etc. (Pilgrim Furniture ) v. Vincent, 286 F. 2d
127,, 131 ( C.A. 2). Cf. Ray Brooks v. N .L.R.B., 348 U.S . 96, 98-104.
W. 'A. Stevens d/b/a W. A. Stevens & Son and John Williams.
Case No. 9-CA-2972. May 20, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 5, 1964, Trial Examiner Frederick U: Reel issued his De-,
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
147 NLRB No. 6.
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended the dismissal
of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
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 brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions and modifica-
tions noted herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
Respondent, his agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discriminating against or threatening to withhold employment
or personal favors from any employee because of activity in or on be-
half of any union.
• (b) Interrogating his employees concerning their resort to or ac-
tivity on behalf of any union.
(c) Threatening to close his business to prevent his employees from
having their union enforce a contractual provision. -
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
his employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor.organizations, to join or assist Local Union No. 216, of the Inter-
national Hod Carriers', Building, and Common Laborers' Union of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection as
1 we find merit in the General Counsel's exception to the Trial Examiner 's failure to find
that the Respondent 's threat to close the operation and start a new business if the
collective-bargaining agreement were enforced as to premium pay for Saturday work was
an additional violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. This threat is apparent from the
undenied testimony of Respondent Stevens, who stated that he told employee Myers that
he, ". .. could form another company and work under another contract . , ." by go-
ing ". . . to the building down the street, if I had to , and form another company there
and put a sign tip ` paint names .' " [ sic],. Accordingly , we shall require in our Order that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom.
W. A. STEVENS & SON 53
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from any and all
such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which we find will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act :
(it) Make John Williams whole in the manner described in the por-
tion of the Trial Examiner 's Decision entitled "The Remedy" for any
.loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at his place of business at Springfield, Ohio, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."? Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleged a violation by the discharge .of Delbert
Newman.
2 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 "a Decision and Order " the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
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, as amended , I hereby notify my employees that :
I WILL NOT discriminate against or threaten to withhold em-
ployment or personal favors from my employees because of ac-
tivity in or on behalf of any, union.
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I WILL NOT interrogate my employees concerning their resort
to or activity on behalf of any union.
I WILL NOT threaten to close my business to prevent my em-
ployees from having their union enforce. a contractual provision.
I WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or co-
erce my employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Local Union No. 216,
of the International Hod Carriers', Building and Common La-
borers' Union of America,, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
I WILL give John Williams backpay for wages he lost between
September 9 and October 7, 1963, as a result of his unlawful
discharge.
W. A. STEVENS, D/B/A W. A. STEVENS & SON,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Room 2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, Telephone No. 381-2200, if they have any questions con-
cealing this notice or compliance with its provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard before Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel at Springfield,
Ohio, on January 15 and 16, 1964,1 pursuant to a charge and complaint filed the
preceding September 15 and November 14, respectively. At issue are whether Re-
spondent discharged two employees (John Williams and Delbert Newman) for
union activity and in various ways interfered with, restrained, and coerced his em-
ployees in the exercise of their statutory right to engage in union activity. Upon
the entire record,2 including my observation of the witnesses, and after full con-
sideration of the brief filed by Respondent, I make the following:
I Unless otherwise noted all other dates herein reefer to the year 1963.
2 Among other minor errors In the transcript, I note that the word "request" at page 173,
line 20, should read "rest," and that the sentence beginning "He" on page 228, line 21,
was uttered by the witness Runyan, not by the Trial Examiner.
W. A. STEVENS & SON 55
FINDINGS OF- FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE UNION INVOLVED
Respondent is an individual engaged in Springfield as a cement contractor in the
installation of pipelines and in street repair . In the year preceding the issuance of
the complaint which is a representative period, Respondent performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 for Ohio Fuel Gas Company, which in turn received in
excess of $50,000 worth of goods directly from outside the State. Respondent
admits, and I find , that its operations affect commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (7) of the Act. Local Union No. 216, of the International Hod Carriers'
Building and Common Laborers' Union of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. -
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background-Respondent's employment practices and his relationship
with the Union
Although Respondent has no signed contract with the Union, and is not a member
of an association that deals with the Union on a multiemployer basis, Respondent
has for a number of -years conformed to the agreements negotiated by the Union
with the Springfield Contractors Association and with the Ohio Contractors Associa-
tion. Both these agreements contained union-security provisions conforming to Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (f) of the Act, and Respondent has advised new employees of
the requirement that they join the Union at the required time. Respondent testified
that his sole concern with the contracts was to make sure that he paid the wage rate
set therein, and prior to the events in this case he apparently paid little attention to -
other provisions, including the provision, common to both contracts, for time-and-
one-half for Saturday work. He did pay that rate for some Saturday work, but prior
to the events here in question he paid only straight time for Saturday work done for
the Ohio Fuel Gas Company. The employees, until the events described below,
had not complained of this Saturday rate, and had understood that they would not
receive premium pay for that work. The hourly rate for laborers in the Springfield
Contractors Association agreement was $3; the rate for laborers in the Ohio Con-
tractors Association agreement applicable to the Springfield area was $2.75. The
latter agreement applied to heavy and highway construction; the former, higher rate
applied to building construction. Prior to the events described below, Stevens paid
his laborers at the higher, ,building construction, rate.
B. The employees seek union aid in obtaining overtime pay forSaturdays
On the afternoon of August 6 a group of Respondent's employees went to the
union office to enlist the Union's aid in obtaining time-and-one-half for Saturday
work. As Raymond Smith, the union business agent, was not in at the time, the
men arranged with Smith's secretary to meet with Smith at 7 o'clock that evening.
Smith, returning to his office, telephoned Respondent to inquire what time the meet-
ing was to be in Respondent's office, and when Stevens indicated complete ignorance
of the matter, Smith "hesitated a minute" and told Stevens to "forget it."
That evening eight of Respondent's employees met with Smith at the union office.
Robert Williams was the principal employee spokesman; Robert's brother, John, and
Delbert Newman also spoke. Robert Williams explained to Smith that the men had
been working Saturdays at straight-time pay, and wanted to be paid time-and-one-
half for that work. Smith told the men that each of them should submit a notarized
affidavit setting forth the pertinent facts, and that the Union would then assist them.
The men promptly had affidavits prepared, executed, and notarized, and the next day
the affidavits were turned over to Smith.
C. Respondent's reaction to the employees' visit to the Union
The day after the affidavits were handed to Smith, i.e., on August 8, Respondent
asked Robert Williams why Williams had gone to the union hall. Williams answered
in somewhat vague terms, to which Stevens replied that he knew why Williams went
to the union hall.
A few days later Smith came to see Stevens, who asked him, "Did you ever get
this meeting deal" straightened out that was supposed to be in [Stevens'] office?"
Smith replied that "some of the boys wanted to come out and get better acquainted,"
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and identified employee George Myers as one of the employees who had been to see
him. On some occasion, possibly this one, Smith mentioned to Stevens that the
latter could perform certain work under the heavy construction agreement and pay
a lower wage rate for such work.
Shortly thereafter Stevens asked Myers if the latter suffered from a short memory,
reminding- Myers that Stevens had given him work the preceding winter when Myers
needed it. Stevens asked what Myers "was trying to start down there," mentioned
that winter was again approaching, and commented that he could start a new .com-
•pany and pay lower wages. In that conversation Stevens asked Myers "how many
guys would stick with" Myers, and the latter replied, "Not many."
During the next few days, and prior to August 23, Stevens asked several of his
employees why they had gone to the Union instead of taking up the matter of Satur-
day pay with him. ' He-indicated that under his contract with the gas company he
could not afford to pay overtime rates on Saturday for the gas company work. Also
during this period employee Delbert Newman indicated to Stevens' bookkeeper that
some employees had "filed charges" against Stevens with the Wage and Hour Divi-
sion of the United States Department of Labor.
D. The events of August 23
On August 23 Newman told Stevens of the charges filed by the employees, and
suggested that Stevens' "only salvation" lay in obtaining the employees' signatures
to a statement that they had asked to work Saturdays at straight-time pay. Newman
declined to commit himself as to whether he would sign such a paper. Stevens ex-
pressed skepticism over the, value of such a document but agreed to prepare it.
Later that morning Stevens went to a job on Mulberry Street where Robert and
John Williams, and Myers were at work. Stevens spoke to Robert Williams, and in
the course of the conversation said that Williams was "the ring leader of this union
matter," that Stevens knew it, and that nothing Williams could do or say would
change his mind. That afternoon Stevens again spoke to Robert Williams, this time
at a jobsite on Selma Road. On this occasion Stevens said that he knew Robert
Williams' crew was involved in this union matter, a fact which Williams readily ad-
mitted. Stevens then mentioned to Williams that Stevens was having a paper drawn
up under which the men "would agree to work overtime for straight time," and
Williams said he would sign it if the other men did.
Late that afternoon when the men came into Stevens' office for their paychecks,
they were handed a sheet of white paper on which was typed: "We, the following
men, have requested of W. A. Stevens & Son that whenever there was extra work
available that we would work for straight time." Below this legend space was left
for signatures, and apparently five men (Robert, John, and Mike Williams, Paul
Hamilton, and Abner Runyan) signed the paper. Stevens emphasized to the men
that they should read the sheet, and sign it or not, as they chose. Robert Williams
urged the men to sign.
In the course of his conversations with the men, Stevens indicated that Delbert
Newman had suggested that Stevens prepare the paper. When Newman, who was
out in the yard, heard from some of the men that Stevens had implicated him in the
preparation of the paper, he went into Stevens' office, took the paper and tore it into
approximately a dozen pieces. Newman took `the scraps with him as -he left the
office. (Stevens later recovered most of the scraps, which were introduced as an
exhibit.) A few minutes later Stevens came out and warned Newman against tear-
ing up paper in Stevens' office. Stevens also stated to Newman at that time, "The
first little thing that you do wrong, any little scratch you put on my equipment, you
will be fired." Newman, who was employed primarily as a mechanic, replied, "I
don't drive your equipment; I just work on it."
E. Respondent starts paying overtime rates for Saturday work
On some date between August 23 and September 9, Smith, the union business
agent, again called on Stevens. On this occasion Smith told Stevens that eight men
had come to see him about the matter of straight-time pay -for Saturdays. Stevens
replied that he could name the eight men, for he knew Myers' crew contained eight
men and Smith had previously mentioned a meeting with Myers and others. Stevens
told Smith that the men who worked Saturdays at straight-time pay had done so
voluntarily, but that henceforth he would comply with the union contract in this
respect. Sometime early in September Respondent commenced paying the premium
W. A. STEVENS & SON 57
rate for all Saturday work.- Not-, long, thereafter-.(but after the events described
below relating to the alleged discrimination-against Newman and John Williams)',
Respondent reduced the basic hourly rate for laborers from $3 to $2.75.3
F. The alleged discrimination against John_ Williams and Newman
1. John Williams
On Monday, September 9, Stevens told John Williams and Myers that they would
not work that day as Stevens was going to split up the work among other laborers
who had not been getting enough work. For the next 2 weeks John Williams re-
ported regularly for work but Stevens told him there was no work for him. On
Thursday, September 19, Williams asked Stevens why he had not been working, and
further inquired whether he had been laid off or fired. Stevens replied that Williams
"got too deeply involved with the union." Williams did not return to seek work
again until October 7. Myers, who had joined Williams in their unsuccessful efforts
to work during the first week after September 9, thereafter abandoned his efforts;
no claim is made in Myers' behalf in this proceeding.
On his September visits to the office to seek work, Williams noted two laborers,
Barker and Stanford, who had been hired after September 9. On Friday, October 4,
Mike Williams, John's brother, quit his job, and John, knowing of the vacancy, went
back to seek employment the following Monday. He was immediately put to work.
According to Robert Williams, another brother of John, Stevens on August 27
asked Robert to "figure a way to get rid of Johnny and Myers," to which Robert re-
plied that they did their job well and he had nothing against them. On September l l
Robert asked Stevens if John Williams and Myers were to be on Robert's crew that
day, to which Stevens replied that they were not going to work there any more.
Williams asked the reason, to which Stevens rejoined that Williams knew the reason
as well as Stevens. Robert Williams requested a layoff on September 13, apparently
because he disliked working with the employees who had replaced John Williams
and Myers. On September 17 when Robert returned to pick up a paper, Stevens
told him that he (Stevens) knew Robert was "roped into this union deal" and "as
far as [Stevens] was concerned [Robert] would never run equipment for him again."
Stevens, in addition to denying certain of the statements attributed to him, testified
that he intended merely to cut John Williams' and Myers' hours temporarily because
he desired to accommodate certain of his Negro laborers who had been complaining
of insufficient work. He further testified that Barker, who had been a labor foreman,
was looking for work after his discharge from the armed services, and was referred
to the job by Smith, the union business agent. Stevens explained the hiring of
Stanford on the ground that Stanford was a former employee who had been injured
on the job, and Stevens felt he owed Stanford a chance to come back to work.
2. Delbert Newman
Newman was employed primarily as a mechanic, keeping Respondent's equipment
in repair, but his rate of pay was no higher than the common labor-rate,. and from
time to time when he had no repair work to do, he would work on the streets -with
the other laborers. Particularly in the late summer his work- as a mechanic had
been unsatisfactory, as the equipment he had ostensibly repaired was repeatedly
breaking down. On the morning of September 12, Stevens told Newman, and one
Worley McWilliams, who had recently been assisting Newman in the shop, not to
go to work as Stevens was going to get by without a mechanic- that day. Stevens
asked for and obtained the keys which Newman held to the tool cabinet. Later that
day Newman heard that one of the pieces of equipment had broken down, and he
went to the shop, where he found McWilliams at work repairing the equipment. On
inquiring of Long, the bookkeeper (Stevens was not present), Newman learned that
Stevens had made no effort to reach Newman when the repair job arose, but called
only McWilliams. -
The next morning, September 13, Newman on reporting for work found Mc-
Williams at work in Newman's place, performing tasks previously performed by
Newman. Stevens told Newman that Newman could no longer work as a mechanic,
3 This wage reduction enabled Respondent to absorb the new overtime payments Thus,
a 48-hour week at 83 per hour, without overtime, cost Respondent slightly more than the
same week at a base rate of $2.75 and 8 hours at time-and-one-half.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as his performance had been unsatisfactory, and Stevens could not afford the costs
imposed on him by Newman 's poor work . Stevens added that Newman could, if he
chose, go to work on the streets as a laborer . Newman retorted with an expression
which plainly indicated that he was not going to accept the laborer 's job, and left.
Some 3 weeks later , Newman, who had filed a claim for unemployment compensa-
tion, telephoned Stevens to explain that he (Newman) was about to leave for
Arizona. Stevens suggested that Newman call again on his return . Newman did
so, and Stevens gave him sporadic employment as a laborer , approximately I day a
week for 3 weeks, beginning in mid -November . Apparently the weather in the fall
of the year was unusually favorable , permitting work to continue into mid-December,
although in other years layoffs because of weather began early in November.
G. Concluding findings
The facts summarized above reflect , in my judgment, an accurate picture of the
pertinent events of the period in question . In large part these critical . events were
the subject of conflicting testimony . I have not entirely credited or entirely dis-
credited the testimony of any of the principal witnesses , but-based on their de-
meanor, on what I regard as the inherent probability or improbability of particular
aspects of their testimony , and on the entire record-I find the facts as set forth
above . In essence , the picture is one of a business which has been conducted with
great informality regarding labor and union matters, and the problems arose from
the impact on that business of the action of a group of employees in seeking the aid
of their union with respect to a condition of employment . The law is clear that in
so doing the men were engaging in an activity protected by Section 7 of the Act.
The record is equally clear that Respondent was disturbed by the fact that the men
exercised this statutory right instead of, as had been their wont , discussing matters
directly with him. In my view , his perturbation over this conduct led him to commit
certain unfair labor practices.
Specifically, I find that Stevens violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogat-
ing several of his employees as to whether and why they had complained to the
Union about not receiving premium pay for Saturday work , by accusing Robert
Williams of being the "ring leader" -in the affair , by his veiled threat to Myers con-
cerning the approach of winter and past favors Stevens had done for Myers, and by
-his statement to John Williams that the latter was out of work because he "got too
deeply involved with the Union."
I further find, relying in part on the remark just quoted , that Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act by withholding employment from John Williams
between September 9 and October 7 because of Williams' resort to the Union to
press his claim for Saturday overtime, an activity protected by Section 7 of the Act.
In so finding I have not overlooked Stevens' denial of the statement attributed to
him by Williams , nor have I overlooked Stevens' testimony that the nonemployment
of Williams in that period resulted from Stevens ' desire to grant the request of cer-
tain colored laborers for a more equitable distribution of work . On this latter point
Stevens was corroborated by the testimony . of Thomas Brown , one of the Negro
workers in question , who testified that he and his fellows approached Stevens about
this time , requesting more work. I am disinclined to credit Brown 's testimony, par-
ticularly in the light of Stevens ' testimony at another point that the colored men
refused to work Saturdays unless they received premium pay, an attitude somewhat
inconsistent with a professed need for more work . But even if the colored men had
made such a plea to Stevens, I find that he seized on it as a device for disciplining
John Williams for having gone to the Union with his complaint.
With respect to Newman , however, I find the scales tipping the other way. It
may well be that but for Newman 's role in the events described above. Stevens
would not have removed him as a mechanic . But, as against this speculation, I find
a great deal of evidence from a number of witnesses that Newman was an unsatis-
factory mechanic , and I also credit the testimony of Stevens and employee Whitman
that Stevens offered Newman regular work (of a less desirable type, it is true, but
at no cut in pay ) at the time Stevens removed him as a mechanic . The General
Counsel failed to sustain his burden of proof as to Newman , and the complaint
insofar as it relates to Newman should be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent , by-laying off John Williams between September 9 and October 7
because of Williams' union and concerted activities , engaged in an unfair labor prac-
tice affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a) (1) and ( 3) and 2(7)
of the Act.
BI-RITE FOODS, INC. 59
2. Respondent , by the various acts of interrogation , veiled threats , and other state-
ments summarized in the section of this Decision headed "Concluding findings,"
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tions 8(a)(1) and 2(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
The unfair labor practices found above call for the customary cease and desist
order, which in the light of Respondent 's extreme reaction to the exercise by his em-
ployees of their Section 7 rights should be broad enough to encompass any further
interference with those rights. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Bailey Company, 180 F . 2d 278, 280
(C.A. 6), and the Sunbeam case there cited . Affirmatively I shall recommend that
Respondent make John Williams whole according to the formulas set forth in
Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB
716, and also that Respondent post an appropriate notice.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Bi-Rite Foods, Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Helpers and
Taxicab Drivers Local Union 327, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America. Cases Nos. 06-CA-1614 and 26-CA-1670.
May 21, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 13, 1964, Trial Examiner Laurence A. Knapp issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the com-
plaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed a brief
in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
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 Charging Party's exceptions and brief, the
Respondent's supporting brief, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Following the usual procedures , this case was heard before Trial Examiner
Laurence A. Knapp on December 10 and 11, 1963, upon issues hereinafter described.
147 NLRB No. 11.