W & J Sloane

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1267 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

W & J SLOANE 1267
cordingly, we find that the firemen are guards within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, and should be included in the guard unit
sought.'
We find-that- the following employees of the Employer constitute a'
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All plant guards and firemen
employed by the Employer in the State of Washington, excluding all
other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
1 See Chance Vought Aircraft, Incorporated, 110 NLRB 1342. Cf. McDonnell Aircraft
Corporation, 109 NLRB 967.
W & J Sloane and Bennie Puzzo -
Merchandise Delivery Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local
804, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers, AFL-CIO [W & J Sloane] and
Bennie Puzzo. Cases Nos.2-CA-40037 and ?-CB-1456. October
11,1956
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 4, 1956, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative, action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond-
ents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
memoranda.'
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 inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the memoranda, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the
Trial Examiner, only insofar as they are consistent with this Decision!
1 The Respondent Company - requested oral argument . Because the record and memo-
randa , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties, the
request is hereby denied.
a We note certain minor errors in the Intermediate Report, which do not; however,
affect the correctness of its conclusions or our concurrence therein. At one point, the
Trial Examiner stated in effect that Kroeger, the warehouse manager of the Respondent
Company, decided to terminate Puzzo and Spitsen, the two dischargees involved herein.
within 2 weeks after he, Kroeger, took over the job, specifically on February 28, 1955.
The record shows only that Kroeger reached this decision sometime before March 5. At
another point, the Trial Examiner stated that Geiger, president of the Respondent Union,
was referring to certain former employees of the Wanamaker Company, whereas he
obviously intended to state that Kroeger was referring to these men.
116 NLRB No. 176.
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
1. The Respondent, W & J Sloane, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Encouraging membership in Merchandise Delivery Drivers,
Warehousemen" and Helpers, Local 804, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization of its employees or applicants for em-
ployment, by discharging employees or refusing to hire applicants for
employment, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(2) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the right
to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents upon
request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay
due and the rights of employment under the terms of this Order.
(2) Post copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix
A" 3 at its principal office and place of business in New York, New
York. Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by a
representative of said Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees and applicants for employment are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondent
3 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 "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
W & J SLOANE 1269
Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
(4) Offer Bennie Puzzo and Leo Spitsen immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and
make them whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
2. The Respondent, Merchandise Delivery Drivers, Warehousemen
and Helpers, Local 804, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, AFL-CIO, its officers, rep-
resentatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
(a) Cease and desist from:
(1) Causing or attempting to cause W & J Sloane, its officers, agents,
successors, or assigns, to discriminate against Bennie Puzzo and Leo
Spitsen, or any other employee or applicant for employment, in vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(2) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of,
or applicants for employment with, W & J Sloane, its successors or
assigns, in the exercise of their right to engage in or to refrain from
engaging in any or all of the concerted activities specified in Section
7 of the Act, 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.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Notify W & J Sloane, in writing, that it has no objection to the
hiring and employment by the Company of Bennie Puzzo and Leo
Spitsen and that it requests W & J Sloane to offer Bennie Puzzo and
Leo Spitsen immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions.
(2) Mail copies of the above notification to Bennie Puzzo and Leo
Spitsen.
(3) Post at its business office and meeting hall in New York, New
York, and all other places where notices to its members are custom-
arily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix
B." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by a repre-
sentative of the Respondent Union, be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Union
4 See footnote 3, above.
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(4) Mail to the Regional Director for the Second Region signed
copies of the above notice for posting, the Company willing, at the
principal place of business of W & J Sloane in New York, New
York, in places where notices to employees or applicants for employ-
ment are customarily posted.
(5) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
3. The Respondents, W & J Sloane, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, and Merchandise Delivery Drivers, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local 804, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, AFL-CIO, its officers, represent-
atives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall jointly and severally
make whole Bennie Puzzo and Leo Spitsen-in the manner set forth
in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," for
any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT
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, we hereby notify our employees and ap-
plicants for employment that :
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Merchandise Delivery
Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 804, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees
or applicants for employment, by discharging employees or re-
fusing to hire applicants for employment, or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees or applicants for employment in the exercise
of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor or-
ganizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, and to refrain from any or all of 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
employment as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
W & J SLOANE 1271
WE WILL offer Bennie Puzzo and Leo Spitsen immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other benefits
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered,as aresult of our discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from be-
coming or remaining members of the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act. We will not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment, against any em-
ployee or applicant for employment because of his membership or non-
membership in, or clearance or lack of clearance from, any such labor
organization.
W & J SLOANE,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF MERCHANDISE DELIVERY DRIVERS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL 804, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, AFL-
CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF, AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT
WITH, W & J SLOANE
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, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause W & J Sloane, its officers,
agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate against Bennie Puzzo
and Leo Spitsen, or any other employees of, or applicants for em-
ployment with, said Company, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
of, or applicants for employment with, W & J Sloane, its successors
or assigns, in the exercise of their right to engage in or to refrain
from engaging in any or all of the concerted activities specified
in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL notify W & J Sloane, in writing, and furnish copies
of such notification to Bennie Puzzo and Leo Spitsen , that we have
no objection to their hiring and employment by said Company.
WE WILL make whole the above -named persons for any loss of
pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them.
MERCHANDISE DELIVERY DRIVERS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS , LOCAL 804, IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------ ---------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These proceedings , brought under Section 10 ( b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, and consolidated by
order of Charles T. Douds, Regional Director for the Second Region ( New York,
New York ), arose by reason of charges filed by Bennie Puzzo and Leo Spitsen
against W & J Sloane, herein called Respondent Company, and Merchandise Delivery
Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers , Local 804, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers , AFL-CIO, herein called Re-
spondent Union. The complaint alleged that the Company and Union have engaged
in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce as set forth and defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.' It specifically alleged that the Respondent Com-
pany did engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3 ) of the Act. The complaint further alleged that the Respondent Union
did engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act. And further , that Respondent Union did cause, and/or attempt to
cause, an employer to discriminate against employees with respect to whom mem-
bership in Respondent Union has been denied or terminated on some ground other
than their failure to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required
as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership , and thereby engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. The Com-
pany and the Union denied generally the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on No-ember 9 and 10 and December 5,
1955, in New York , New York , before the Trial Examiner duly appointed by the Chief
Trial Examiner , in accordance with Section 102.34 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, in which all parties participated , were represented by counsel, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues , and to file briefs and present oral arguments.2 At
the close of the hearing , upon request by General Counsel, time was granted until De-
cember 26 for General Counsel to file a brief and Respondents were granted 4 days
thereafter, or until January 1, to submit briefs. Briefs were not submitted by either
party.
1 The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as
the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
H This hearing was originally opened November 3, 1955, by Trial Examiner Eugene E.
Dixon, but the only thing accomplished then was to postpone the proceeding until
November 9 , 1955.
W & J SLOANE 1273
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT COMPANY
Respondent Company is and has been , at all times material herein , a corporation
duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
It has maintained its principal office, retail store, and place of business at 575 Fifth
Avenue in the city and State of New York, and various other retail stores, plants,
places of business, warehouses, and other facilities in the States of California, Con-
necticut, New Jersey, and Washington, D. C., and is now and has been continuously
engaged at said retail stores and places of business in the sale and distribution of
furniture , furnishings , and related products . During the year 1954 , Respondent
Company, in the course and conduct of its business operations , caused to be pur-
chased, transferred, and delivered to its New York City retail store and warehouse,
furniture and furnishings and other goods and materials , valued in excess of $1,500,-
000, of which, goods and materials valued in excess of $1,000,000 were trans-
ported to said retail store and warehouse in interstate commerce directly from the
States of the United States other than the State of New York, and in foreign commerce
directly from foreign countries . During the same period , Respondent Company in
the course and conduct of its business operations, caused to be sold and distributed
from said New York retail store and warehouse, products valued in excess of $1,000,-
000, of which, products valued in excess of '$200,000 were shipped from said retail
store and warehouse in interstateecommerce directly to States of the United States
other than the State of New York and in foreign commerce to foreign countries.
Respondent Company is, and has been at all times material herein , engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This case concerns the real reason for the discharge of two truckdriver -helpers
of W & J Sloane in New York City. The facts are that Bennie Puzzo , the Charging
Party herein , acted upon a newspaper advertisement of W & J Sloane 's stating that
jobs were available for truckdrivers and applied for such a job at the Company's
warehouse near the end of November 1954. He was interviewed by Frank Kenyon,
the delivery dispatcher , at which time he made out an application as a chauffeur-
helper which was submitted to and approved by Warehouse Manager Oscar E.
Glaus . Upon receiving a telegram on December 7, advising him to report for
duty , Puzzo went to work in the warehouse the next morning. Puzzo worked
steadily as helper on the trucks and at times as a driver until March 5 when his
employment was terminated by the Company . Leo Spitsen was employed and
discharged under similar circumstances.
Puzzo charges that the Company terminated him and his associate , Leo Spitsen,
at the insistence of the Union after they had satisfactorily worked more than 30
days and had put themselves in a position with the Union to become full-fledged
members. Both also contend that the Union denied them membership after hav-
ing accepted their initiation fees and having received their union dues because some
60 regular members of the Union were suddenly thrown out of work by reason of
the closing of Wanamaker 's & Company 's warehouse during January 1955 and there-
fore the Union required the jobs held by Puzzo and Spitsen for their unemployed
members. The Company contends that these two men were discharged for the rea-
son that more experienced men were available , and, in Puzzo 's case specifically,
because of "disturbing the [loading ] operation in the morning" by talking to his
drivers during the loading of the trucks-"a time waster"-and in Spitsen's case
because he "had a very high overtime factor , which is exceptionally costly" and
because of the unsatisfactory way he loaded a truck . The Union contends that it
did not conspire with or influence management in these discharges in order to take
care of union men unemployed by reason of Wanamaker 's closedown , or for any
other reason.
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Contract
The bargaining relations which existed between the Company and the Union
were governed by a contract executed on July 7, 1954, which provided that the
Company would not continue in its employ any employee who had failed to join
the Union 30 days after their employment, unless with the consent of the Union.
Union eligibility status is covered by an additional provision in which the Union
recognizes that during certain peak periods of the year, the business of the Com-
pany requires the employment of temporary employees. New employees' hired
during the periods from October 15 through December 31 or from May 1 through
June 30 shall be regarded as temporary employees and shall not acquire union
eligibility status (be eligible to become members of the Union) unless their,employ-
ment shall continue through the next business day following the last day of either
peak period. All other new employees hired outside of the peak periods above
described shall acquire union eligibility status after their continuous employment
for a period of more than 30 days provided, however, that in specific cases this period
may be lengthened by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. This contract also
specifies that employees shall be eligible for and admitted to membership in the
Union without discrimination and on fair and reasonable terms in accordance with
the provisions of the constitution and bylaws of the Union.
Glaus' Version of the Hiring
Oscar E. Glaus, warehouse manager between 1953 and February 1955, started
to work for Sloane's in 1947 as a "stockman," ancrf continued as warehouse manager
until released by Sloane's in February 1955. His duties were to supervise the ware-
house employees, load and dispatch furniture and merchandise in the Company's
15 trucks, receive and store stock, and attend to the duties incident to warehousing.
His superior was Store Superintendent Murray. Glans hired Spitsen and Puzzo
.,with the understanding that if they showed accuracy and good ability there may
be a possibility of a permanent job. But they were hired on a temporary basis." He
also hired some 4 to 6 additional men as temporary employees. However, at the
end of the Christmas season in December 1954 he "laid off possibly as many as eight
men" but did not lay off Spitsen or Puzzo.
In this connection, Glaus had a conversation with Puzzo and Spitsen reciting:
"Well, at that time, they were both working on trucks in the garage as there wasn't
sufficient amount of deliveries being made. And I said to them that I was thoroughly
satisfied with their capability of handling the truck, making deliveries, and giving
me a good day's work, and I thought, almost sincerely that I would be able and
was going to keep them on after the first of the new year 1955. . . . And I said
that I would give them a more definite answer in another matter of a couple of days,
the reason for that was that I was working looking over my budget, I didn't want
to go beyond, and at that time, I realized I had a few drivers that were going to
retire, and knowing that they were an asset to W & J Sloane, and competent furniture
handlers and deliverers, why, I told them, a day or two later I would give them a
definite answer. . . I think the following day after the first day that I talked to them
in the garage, I told them I was keeping them on steady." [Emphasis supplied.]
Glaus testified that he notified his superior, Murray, by a "memorandum that leads up
to the deductions of the welfare dues from the Union." 3
Search of the material brought in by the General Counsel under subpoena duces
tecum did not result in finding the memoranda from Glaus to the Company nor to
the Union. However, in answer to the General Counsel: "Mr. Glaus, you do recall
having sent a memorandum to the Union during the month of January 1955, advis-
ing the Union of the change of status of employees Leo Spitsen and Bennie Puzzo
from temporary to regular employees, do you not?" Glaus testified: "Well, the
answer to that is that I recall dictating a short memorandum to my secretary the latter
part of January in reference to these two employees about keeping them on steady."
He stated that he saw the memorandum with other papers, but he personally did not
send it out-"those things were left to my secretary.",
8 The welfare deductions are funds that the Company has to pay to the Union for the
members as provided in the contract. Glans further stated that he notified the Union
(Local 804), of the change of the status of these employees from temporary to regular
employees and "a memorandum was made up to my secretary, Mrs Matera, who in turn
sent it over to Miss Hynes." (Miss Hynes was an employee of Local 804 )
W & J SLOANE
Puzzo and Spitsen Pay Their Union Initiation Fees and Dues
1275
On December 29, 1954, when Glaus came to Puzzo and Spitsen and advised them
that he was going to try to keep them on because he liked the way they worked, he
told them that after the first of the year they would have to join the Union and
pay dues. To this understanding Puzzo thanked him very much and said: "I was
more than tickled pink to join the union and to pay my dues." During the first
part of the second week in January, Puzzo discussed joining the Union with the
chief shop steward, Walter Chapman. Chapman told him that he was "waiting
to get an O. K. from Mr. Glaus." Glaus' O. K. came through late in January or
early in February, and on February 5, Joe Beager, the then shop steward for drivers
and helpers, had Puzzo and Spitsen execute applications for union membership
and insurance policies obligating themselves for $25 initiation fee and $3 dues.
However, "because that was about two or three days after our pay day," Puzzo
was unable to pay until February 10, and Spitsen paid up on February 15. Receipts
were given to them by Chief Steward Chapman. The record evidence indicates
that group life insurance policies in the amount of $2,000, dated January 8, 1955,
written by the United States Life Insurance Co., for Trustees of Local 804 Welfare
Trust Fund, together with accident and sickness policies, likewise dated January
8, 1955, written by Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association covering Puzzo
and Spitsen, were executed and delivered by the Union. Also statements of earnings
and deductions showing $6 union dues withheld from Puzzo and Spitsen by W & J
Sloane, dated February 24, 1955, for pay period ending February 20, are exhibits
in evidence, as well as Blue Cross Plan identification cards for both men, dated
March 8, 1955.
Puzzo and Spitsen Refused Cards
About 5 or 6 days after paying their initiation fees and dues Puzzo asked Chap-
man if he had their union books and was advised: "No, they are not issuing out
anymore union books due to the fact that there is a big change-over, they are making
out plastic cards instead." Inquiring again , after a lapse of 4 or 5 days, or about
February 20, Puzzo was told by Chapman that the cards were not ready yet, but
that he would be notified as soon as they were ready. The next step in this sequence
of events occurred on or about February 25 when Puzzo and Spitsen had a conversa-
tion with Stewards Chapman and Beager, at, which time Chapman returned each
of them $28. When Puzzo asked why their money was being returned Chapman
told him that the books were closed: "Mr. Chapman told me that due to the fact that
Wanamaker men being out of work, that they would all have to go to work before
me, because I wasn' t a union member." Puzzo contended that he was a member of
the Union and held onto his receipt for the $28 initiation fee and dues. Spitsen like-
wise refused to accept the return of his $28. (As previously alluded to, Wana-
maker's store had recently closed, throwing approximately 60 warehousemen- and
drivers out of work-all of whom were all members of Local 804. Certain former
Wanamaker employees were taken on by Sloane during February and March 1955.)
Puzzo and Spitsen are Discharged
A significant event occurred which' affected Puzzo and Spitsen at the inception
of their affiliation with the Union-their sponsor, Glans, was discharged on Feb-
ruary 14 by.Sloane's upon the charge of inefficiency. Glans was immediately suc-
ceeded by a new warehouse manager, Fred J. Kroeger. Kroeger discharged Puzzo
and Spitsen without warning on February 28, or 3 days after the $28 refund episode
with Steward Chapman. General Counsel charges that Kroeger arbitrarily dis-
charged Puzzo and Spitsen "because the Union told him to be arbitrary in this case-
in face of the facts that Glans had decided to keep them on permanently as replace-
ments for two older men who were about to retire, had sent a notice to the Union
that they were being kept on by the Company and would be "folded in" under
the contract, that he had given instructions to Warehouse Secretary Marie S. Matera
that their union dues should be deducted starting in February and that their welfare
contributions should be made by the Company, and finally that Puzzo and Spitsen
had qualified for membership. The question to be decided then is whether the Union
caused them to be fired by the Company from their jobs for reasons other than
failure to pay their dues under the contract.
Witnesses Testifying Concerning the Discharges
There were six witnesses who testified concerning the discharges. Puzzo and
Spitsen gave their versions in detail. Manager Kroeger was examined and cross-
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
examined at great length. Union President Leonard Geiger's testimony was designed
to exculpate his Union from any responsibility. These four witnesses were and are
vitally concerned in the outcome of this case . Marie S. Matera, warehouse secretary
to both Glaus and Kroeger during the entire time the events in issue occurred,
quit her job about 2 months after the discharges.
There was one witness certainly to whom no taint of prejudice or bias could be
attached. He had not been fired. He had not quit for reasons unknown. He had
not undertaken a new job in which he would have to make a showing. In fact 1
week before the hearing, he was appointed union steward, replacing Beager. Also,
he held a dual allegiance-to the Company which paid him the salary upon which
he lived and to the Union whose card he held, which card is a passport to his
means of livelihood. This witness was frank, sincere, forthright, and objective-
even courageous. His testimony was damaging both to his Employer and to his
Union, which had so recently appointed him steward. This witness was Anthony
Straub.
Straub's Version
Anthony Straub, called as a witness on behalf of the General Counsel, was ap-
pointed shop steward of Local 804 replacing Beager about a week before this hearing
and served under Chief Shop Steward Walter Chapman. He has been employed
by Sloane's as chauffeur-helper for approximately 2 years. He had previously
worked with Kroeger in the Long Island warehouse of Goldsmith Bros. Straub testi-
fied that on March 3 he had a conversation relative "to the firing, rather, the rumor
that Spitsen and Puzzo were going to be let go," reciting: "Well, I asked [Kroeger]
how he felt about Spitsen and Puzzo being fired. And he said he had no preference,
he was satisfied with their employment, and as far as he was concerned he would
keep them on as Sloane employees. And . . . he suggested that I go to the Union
and talk to them and see if I can get any information from them or convince them
that they should be kept. . . He said, 'I suggest that you go to the Union and
talk to them. . ' I said, 'All right, I will see if I can make arrangements with
Frank Kenyon, who was the dispatcher at the time, to set up the routes so we might
stop there in the morning.' And Mr. Kenyon agreed, and he set it up so we could
go out the following morning." Testifying that the next morning he took Puzzo
and Spitsen to the union hall and neither Union President Leonard Geiger nor
Union Delegate and Recording Secretary Frank Keown being present, he waited 15
or 20 minutes until Geiger called his office. Straub spoke to him on the telephone
and made arrangements for them to meet Geiger the following Monday morning,
'March 7, "and before he hung up I asked him if he knew of anything concerning the
firing of Spitsen and Puzzo. And at that time he said, 'No, I don't know anything
about it.' That was the end of our conversation." Upon returning from his work
route the next evening he found Puzzo waiting for him to tell him that he had been
'discharged.
On Monday morning, March 7, he returned to the hall with Puzzo and Spitsen to
fulfill his engagement with Geiger, at which time he talked with Union Secretary
Keown in lieu of Geiger who was attending another meeting. His testimony in this
connection was:
Well, the three of us were present, Mr. Keown was there, and there was
another delegate at the meeting, I can't recall his name-I don't think I knew
his name. And we asked-rather, I asked if-why they were let go. And
Mr. Keown told us that since Wanamaker went out of business, they had 60
some odd men out of work, and these men had to be placed. And as far as
he was concerned, he had to do-they had to do their best, because they repre-
sented these men, they had to do their best to place them. And since W & I
Sloane was a member, the employees were members of Local 804, that was
one of the logical places where they could put the Wanamaker men. And we
asked him, well, as far as we know, Spitsen and Puzzo should have been eligible
for union books, and we wanted to know why they had not been given the
union books. And Mr. Keown informed us that the union books had been
closed for two years, and they just weren't permitted to enter Spitsen and Puzzo
into the books for that reason. [Emphasis supplied.]
And he expressed his sympathy [saying] that I am sorry that they couldn't do
anything about it, but he said that is just the way it has to stand. And of
course, Spitsen and Puzzo had something to say, they mentioned the insurance
olicy which was given to them by the union, the fact that they had paid the
28 initiation-$25 initiation fee plus the $3 dues plus another $6 dues, and
that Mr. Glaus informed them that he was going to keep them on as temporary-
permanent employees-I am sorry. And they just couldn't understand-with
W & J SLOANE 1277
all this information that they had, they still couldn't be given their union books
and kept on as permanent employees.
And at the conclusion , Mr. Keown said that there was nothing he could do
about it , and we left.
Secretary Matera's Version
Marie S. Matera, secretary to the warehouse manager for 10 years, did secretarial'
and payroll work "and everything in connection with union dues." She 'described'
the hiring of Puzzo and Spitsen and of several others on a temporary basis during this
season. Responding to 'a question as to the Company's practice toward extra work-
ers, she stated : "Well, we usually let them go. But Sloane always ran an ad be-
tween Christmas and New Year's, and we were very busy during that week, almost
as busy as we had been before Christmas , and they let some men go , and they kept
these two men because they were very good workers." With reference to their
retention as permanent employees Secretary Matera quoted then Foreman Glans as
telling her at the beginning of February: "He said he was going to keep them. And
it was in February when he told me to deduct the dues, to put their names on the
payroll , leave their names on the payroll , rather, and deduct dues , that they were
in Local 804 ; and I proceeded to do that ." In explaining the method of reporting
dues to the Union she stated:
A. Well, after the deduction is made on that payroll I make a list of every
employee whose name is on the payroll together with the amount of deduction,
and I hand that over to the store. And they send a check to Local 804 for the
dues. And at the same time, I send a count to Mr. Murray, and I say as of the
first of every month there were so many employees-148 or 150-whatever the
case may be, on the payroll, and I understand that that was multiplied by
$12.57, and a check for that was sent to Local 804.
Q. Do you make a list at the beginning of the month of all those who are
under Local 804 contract, and paying dues and welfare funds?
A. After it is deducted from that week.
Q. For the month of February, did you do that for Puzzo and Spitsen?
A. No. Theirs was first deducted for the first of March, but they had $6
deducted each.
Q. You reported them on March 1st?
A. The last week in February they were reported , but they paid $3 for
February-$3 for March, and $3 for April-$6.
The Telephone Call
Mrs. Matera remained for 3 months in the Company 's employment after Glans
was discharged and was succeeded by Kroeger-she quit on May 13, 1955.4 She was
asked by the General Counsel whether she recalled a telephone call coming into her
office from Union President Geiger just prior to March 5. She testified : "It was
during the week of February 28th, and a few days before March 5th that a call
came through and a young lady said that Mr. Leonard Geiger wanted to talk to Mr.
Kroeger." Mrs. Matera 's testimony in this connection was:
When the call came through that Mr. Geiger wanted to talk to Mr. Kroeger,
I went through the front office. Mr. Geiger was in the front office. When he got
into the middle office, which is his office, then I went back to my office, and
between the time of the connection, I put the receiver to my ear, and Mr.
Geiger was talking on the phone to Mr. Kroeger.
She testified hearing in the "split second " that she had the telephone to her ear:
"Mr. Lennie Geiger said to Mr. Kroeger to get rid of the last two Sloane men and
give the Wanamaker boys the preference all the way." Both Kroeger and Geiger
categorically denied this telephone conversation. The Trial Examiner credits Mrs.
Matera. She stated that she then hung up the telephone and that: "He [Kroegerl
A Mrs. Matera had talked with the new manager, Kroeger, about a salary raise several
weeks before she quit and, although she felt like she was entitled to an increase, she did
not get it Under credibility testing, on cross-examination, she firmly insisted that she
did not quit because of not receiving a raise. It must be borne in mind that Mrs. Matera
was an unwilling witness, obviously wanting no part in these proceedings, and it was
necessary to enforce General Counsel's subpoena testificandum through the United States
District Court to get her to testify. The Trial Examiner's opinion is that under compul-
sion she stated the facts as she knew them to be. She was an objective, honest, and
sincere witness The Trial Examiner credits her recitation of the facts and resolved all
conflicts in favor of Mrs. Matera' s version.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
came out and told me to get the hours ready for those two boys [Puzzo and Spitsen],
that he was going to let them go on March 5th." She called the hours over to the
store and their money was sent over on Friday afternoon of March 4.
Mrs. Matera stated that Puzzo came back to the office on March 7 and asked
Kroeger, in her presence, whether he was fired, to which Kroeger replied: "Why
no, Bennie you were laid off. When we get busy we will send for you." [Emphasis
supplied.]
Kroeger's Version
- Fred J. Kroeger succeeded Glaus as warehouse manager on February 14, 1955.
Glaus admitted that he had been discharged because management was dissatisfied
with the efficiency standard maintained in the warehouse under his supervision. Of
this Kroeger was aware when he undertook the job.5 After looking over the payroll
he stated that his first examination showed it "was quite mixed up." He first inquired
about the status of the various employees at the end of his first week, on February
21, when: "the occasion for that was I had a visit from Mr. Geiger and Mr. Keown
who sort of welcomed me into the new job, and to invite me to their affair that was
being run the next day. That was apparently their annual dance." Kroeger stated
that, for the past 15 years, he had not been working in any places where Local 804
had contracts, but he had known Geiger previous to his employment with Sloane's.
Kroeger stated that he had gone over the payroll the previous Saturday: "I couldn't
make head or tail out of it. . . . So we went over the list of names, and Mr. Geiger
pointed out those that were regulars and those that were extras." He stated that
Puzzo and Spitsen as well as 7 or 8 others were listed as extras: "And he [Geiger]
indicates those men were extras and were on the probationary period. And he says,
as long as you are new here I will give you an extension of time so that you can
observe and decide whether or not these men work to your satisfaction." Kroeger
testified that there was no discussion about the Wanamaker store closing, nor did
Geiger or Keown request him to do anything with reference to these extra employees.
Kroeger, at no time, consulted with anyone other than Geiger, Keown, and Chapman.
Although he knew that Mrs. Matera was in charge of the "mixed up" payroll, he
did not discuss it-with her, nor inquire from supervisors or the dispatcher of their
opinions of Puzzo and Spitsen. His explanation was: "I didn't inquire from their
supervisors. I made my own observations, because he [Glaus] had a very inefficient
operation.. . The dispatcher we had on duty at the time I considered very inefficient,
and I wouldn't take his opinion."
Questioned by the General Counsel as to his decision for terminating Puzzo and
Spitsen within 2 weeks after he took over the job, specifically on February 28, he
admitted that on March 5 he definitely discharged them rather than laid them off:
"Because we could replace them with men who had more experience, longer ex-
perience, knew a greater amount of territory, and could build up the efficiency of the
department." On cross-examination by Company Counsel Taylor, he glibly am-
plified his stated reasoning:
Well, No. 1, we cover a radius of 50 miles, and our volume does not dictate to
going to every point every day, so that we have a scattered situation where we
go to Brooklyn two days a week, Long Island two days a week, Jersey two days
a week, city three days a week, different territories in Connecticut, one, two and
three days a week, so that experience in knowing territory is very valuable to a
delivery organization. Where a man can be put in Long Island one day, and
Jersey another day, and still know how to get around in the most expeditious
manner possible. It is also very advantageous for a man to know how to handle
furniture, for the loading of his load, getting it correctly, and fast, getting it off
correctly and fast. Knowing how to deliver in different types of apartments,
stairways, elevators, without causing damage to the furniture, damage to the
walls, customers' property. And that does not come easy or fast.
Obviously, Geiger was referring to the Wanamaker men who were then and had
been availablc from the first of February. If the Trial Examiner believed and
accepted this explanation, Kroeger would have been justified in reversing Glaus'
decision to keep Puzzo and Spitsen. However, based upon his demeanor upon the
witness stand, the Trial Examiner concluded that Kroeger was an untrustworthy
5 Questioned by General Counsel as to specific instructions given to him by Sloane's
when he was employed as manager, Kroeger testified : "Well the inefficiencies in the
operation apparently had been building up to such a great extent that they had to have a
clear answer to them, and have them cleared up from the expense viewpoint. . . . I found
that a very inefficient operation, a very confusing operation ; with people operating the
delivery division who had no conception of what a delivery should run as."
W & J SLOANE 1279
witness, and fabricated his testimony to suit the occasion . He impressed the Trial
Examiner as a "glib witness." This conclusion is confirmed by the impeccable
testimony of two sincere and objective witnesses , Steward Straub and Mrs. Matera.
The following excerpt of testimony illustrates that Straub found Kroeger to be
unreliable , even after suggesting that Straub go to the Union and talk in Puzzo and
Spitsen 's behalf. The next day, Friday , before acting on Kroeger 's suggestion,
Straub went to Kroeger:
I asked Mr . Kroeger-I told him we were going out to the union and I would
like to know if we could feel that he was behind us as far as the employment
of Spitsen and Puzzo . And he told me to sit down , he would like to talk to
me. He said , "As far as I am concerned ," he said , "the employees from Wana-
maker 's had experience ranging from 15 to 25 years , and he felt to run Sloane's on
a budget below the United Parcel budget , he had to have men of this calibre."
I informed him of the experience that Spitsen and Puzzo had in the furniture
business , which, of course , was less than what they had-the Wanamaker men.
He said , "Well, you can see the difference ," he said, "these men have 25
years' experience , they can operate the trucks, and the deliveries a lot more effi-
cient than Spitsen and Puzzo , and the work, as far as I am concerned, that I
can run the company much better with the men from Wanamaker's."
And I informed him that I was surprised to hear this because of our con-
versation of yesterday . And he said , well, he said , "as you know, I am the
warehouse manager and I have to run this company as to the delivery end as
inexpensively as I can."
So I informed him that I would go out to the union and still see if I could do
something about it and if it would be all right with him . He said , of course, he
said, "Yon continue what you wanted to do, but I just wanted to let you know
where I stand."
Q. (By Counsel Rotolo. ) You told him you were surprised in view of what
he had said the day before ; right?
'A. Yes. [Emphasis supplied.]
Kroeger Authorized Company Welfare Contributions and Dues Checkoff
At one point General Counsel 's Exhibits Nos. 21 and 22, two memoranda dated
February 21 and March 1 , 1955, over Kroeger's signature , were presented to him.
These read as follows:
W & J Sloane
Memo To: Mr. Frank Mannarino Date: FEB. 21, 1955
From: Fred Kroeger Subject:
Will you kindly issue a check immediately to the order of International
Brotherhood of Teamsters for $37.71 covering welfare for Bennie Puzzo for
the month of February and Leo Spitzen for the months of January and Febru-
ary. Also kindly enclose attached list with check.
This to go to Welfare Trust Fund, Local 804 2001 Jackson Ave.
im
Long Island City, N. Y.
FRED KROEGER,
Warehouse Manager.
W & J Sloane
Memo To: Miss Adele Bartling, Cashier.
From: Fred Kroeger
Attached is list* to be
March, 1955.
im
included with check for union
Date: MARCH 1, 1955
Subject:
dues for Local 804 for
FRED KROEGER,
Warehouse Manager.
*This list entitled Local 804 Union Dues Deducted From Employees of
W & J Sloane For March, 1955, bears, among those of 12 others, the names
of Bernie Puzzo-$6.00 and Leo Spitsen-$6.00.
Employer's Exhibit No. 3 is a letter, dated March 21, 1955, to Sloane's assistant
secretary from Edward Conway, secretary-treasurer of Local 804, enclosing the
Union's check for $12 covering dues checked off from Puzzo and Spitsen, stating:
"The men are not on our files and dues were apparently sent to us in error."
Kroeger explained that these memos were not made at his direction, testifying:
"This was made, apparently, as I remember, from the call to Mrs. Matera, that we
owed this money to the people in the union. And Mrs. Matera made up this note
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and said , "This has to be paid to the union ." To which I said , "Is this the normal
proceeding " being new, I was there only a week , and she said , "Yes, this is normal
proceeding ." Thereupon Kroeger signed the memoranda . Hence, Kroeger knew
at least a week before discharging them that Puzzo and Spitsen were being processed
into the Union.
Geiger's Version
Geiger, on direct examination, began his version by describing a meeting with
Glaus sometime after the first of January, in reference to the union standing of
employees in Sloane's testifying : "Both Puzzo and Spitsen had gotten enough time
in so that we were requesting welfare benefits and automatic union eligibility in-
creases and wanted to know from Mr. Glaus whether or not he was going to keep
these people on as permanents or extra employees . He answered that he wasn't sure
yet, and he wanted additional time." Geiger stated that he then granted Glaus such
an extension . Asked to explain what arrangements , if any, were made when such
extensions are granted in respect to the other parts of the contract-welfare con-
tributions-Geiger answered : "Well, an extension is granted such as that where an
employer hasn't been able to determine whether or not he is going to keep a party
on permanently or not, and grant an extension, but they have to live up to the welfare
payments, the automatic increase that may be due." He stated that the benefits of
the contract in those respects would apply to the employees even though the other
parts of the contract in respect to the permanency was waived for the time being.
He stated that this was done in the cases of Puzzo and Spitsen . ( It should be recol-
lected that the effective date of the welfare policies issued Puzzo and Spitsen is
January 8, 1953 .) 6 He testified that his Union is not concerned when a man is on
the job more than 30 days, and in the case of Puzzo and Spitsen : "We weren't con-
cerned about his dues as such , we were concerned about his coverage . . . the
initiation [fees] we never accepted ." Examined in this connection:
Q. Isn't it a fact that Mr. Chapman came into your office in the early part
of March and told you , "I have got the initiation and dues of these two boys"?
A. Whenever he was in there, I don't recall the date.
Q. But he did bring you the money?
A. Not to me. He brought it to the gal in the office, and I was there.
Q. But when you heard he was turning in the money to the girl, you stopped
him, isn't that so?
A. This is right.
Q. What did you tell him at the time you stopped him?
A. What did I tell Chapman?
Q. What instructions did you give him?
A. Give him the money back because the company has requested an extension
of the probationary period , and these people are not considered as being eligible
for the union yet.
Q. (By Mr. Harold.) Can you explain, in relation to Sloane, the manner in
which management would check off dues and forward it to the union, in the
face of the extension of time asked for by Mr. Kroeger and by Mr. Glaus?
A. They would not forward any dues to the union office if they should not for-
ward any Union dues because these people are not eligible for the union. When
they do become eligible, we would send an authorization card to each of the indi-
viduals, or however amount of people-whatever amount there would be, and
have them sign the authorization, have them send the authorization through
with the dues deduction.
Then, according to Geiger, he did nothing further about Puzzo and Spitsen until
he and Delegate Keown and Chief Steward Chapman had the first meeting with
Kroeger-who, it will be recalled, started to work 5 or 6 weeks later. (Apparently,
this conference also was the occasion for inviting Kroeger to the annual dance.)
On cross-examination by General Counsel, Geiger stated that he did not go to
Kroeger to see about Puzzo and Spitsen, nor did he have a conversation with
Kroeger about them. His testimony was,that he went to see Kroeger to ascertain
whether some seven employees carried as extras should be considered still proba-
tionary or not, reciting: "In going through the list I pointed out to Mr. Kroeger
that these,men are not extra employees, they are probationary employees." (This
list of seven "extras" included Puzzo. and Spitsen.) He testified that he then made
an agreement that Kroeger would have more time to decide whether to: "Keep them
on as probationaries or knock them off." Glaus admitted, and Geiger heard him
6 Geiger explained that Sloane's had been in his Union for 2 years, and the Union also
had contracts with 20 other firms, the largest of which was United Parcel Co.
W & J SLOANE 1281
testify, that he personally kept them on as temporaries from the first of January
until the latter part of January because they did not have the $25 initiation fees
and he considered that a few more weeks would enable them to earn it. However,
he definitely told them that he was going to keep them on as regular employees and
so advised Superintendent Murray and the Union. In this respect, he extended the
period, but for purposes only of accommodation until they could make their pay-
ments, but with the intention of keeping them on permanently. Of this fact, the
Trial Examiner finds, the Union was aware before Glaus was discharged and before
Geiger, Keown, and Chapman contacted Kroeger.
With 'respect to the applications which Puzzo and Spitsen submitted, Geiger testi-
fied that the Union rejected them: "Because Sloane's management requested an
extension of the probationary permanent employees." He testified that he waited
until he got decisions both from Glaus and Kroeger before rejecting them but that
Chapman may have attempted to return the money to Puzzo and Spitsen in February
before Kroegeramade his decision because Glaus had already made his decision.
In answer to the General Counsel's query: "But you had attempted before that
date, was it before that date or after that date that you instructed Mr. Chapman to
give back the initiation fees to these men?" Geiger answered: "I don't recall whether
it was before or after that date. Glaus had made the request originally, it had been
granted. Kroeger came in cold, he did not know the two men, he also requested
an extension; it was granted. When the money was returned to them, I don't
know offhand, but it was while these extensions were requested."
Conclusions
The Trial Examiner subscribes to the General Counsel's contentions as set forth
in the complaint for the reason that it is my finding that the versions given by his
witnesses are true. The truth, as found, is that the Union caused the Company to
discharge Puzzo and Spitsen in order to make jobs available for unemployed union
members, the erstwhile Wanamaker employees. The Company, by yielding to the
demand of the Union under these circumstances and in discharging Puzzo and
Spitsen, violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. As we have seen, Puzzo
and Spitsen tendered their initiation fees and dues to the Union. While the Union
could have refused to accept Puzzo and Spitsen into membership, as it did, it could
not, under the facts found above, cause their discharges without violating Section 8
(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. It is so found.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company and the Union set forth in section III, above, occur-
ring in connection with the activities of the Company described in section 1, 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that they (be ordered to) cease and desist therefrom and that
they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent Company discriminatorily discharged Bennie
Puzzo and Leo Spitsen on March 5, 1955, it will be recommended that the Respondent
Company offer to Bennie Puzzo and Leo Spitsen immediate and full reinstatement
to their former, or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the Company and the Union, jointly
and severally, make Bennie Puzzo and Leo Spitsen whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them by pay-
ment to them of a sum equal to the amount they normally would have earned as
wages from the date of the discrimination against them until their reinstatement by
the Company. Back pay shall be computed in accordance with Board policy set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. It will also be recommended
that Respondent Company, upon request, make available to the Board payroll and
other records to facilitate the determination of the amount due. The Respondent
Union may terminate liability for further accrual of back pay by sending notice to
Company and to Puzzo and Spitsen that Respondent Union has no objection to the
reinstatement of Puzzo and Spitsen to the positions they occupied at the time of their
405448-57-vol . 116-82
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge . The Respondent Union shall not thereafter be liable for any back pay
accruing after 5 days from giving such notice?
It has been found that the Respondent Company, upon what was tantamount to
a demand of the Respondent Union, discriminatorily discharged Bennie Puzzo and
Leo Spitsen on March 5, 1955, in order that the jobs which Puzzo and Spitsen held
could be filled by unemployed members of the Union, former Wanamaker employees,
and thereby restrained and coerced Puzzo and Spitsen and the employees of Re-
spondent Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. W & J Sloane is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Merchandise Delivery Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers , Local 804, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen- and Helpers,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Bennie
Puzzo and Leo Spitsen, thereby encouraging membership in a labor organization, the
Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. By the above discrimination the Company has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. By attempting to cause and causing the Company to discriminate against Bennie
Puzzo and Leo Spitsen in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Union has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (2) of the Act.
6. By causing the Company to discriminate as aforesaid , thereby restraining and
coercing employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
T Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc ., 90 NLRB 205, 213.
David G. Leach and Doyle H . Wallace, d/b/a Brookville Glove
Company, and/or Brookville Glove Manufacturing Company,
Inc. and Ethel Virginia Adams and Pearl Jean Allshouse.
Cases Nos. 6-CA-818 and 6-CA-819. October 12,1956
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 5, 1956, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond-
ents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and briefs in support of their exceptions.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondents' and the General Counsel's excep-
tions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and adopts the
116 NLRB No. 178.