Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 5, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

WASHINGTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS, INC. 7
bership could not have been required of the new employees as a condition of employ-
ment until. 30 days following their hiring on April 23.
It is idle, of course, to speculate what bearing good-faith considerations might have
had on unfair labor practice charges against the Company. None are before us.
Respondent was not, of course, entitled to take into its own hands the remedying of
assumed unfair labor practices or other injustices by the Company, or more precisely,
it was not entitled to do so by engaging in conduct of its own which constituted an
unfair labor practice.
It is therefore concluded and found on the entire evidence that Respondent on
April 26 warned and threatened employees of Jeffrey that they would be required
to sign checkoff authorizations and become members of Respondent as a condition
to continued employment by Jeffrey, and that on April 30 Respondent caused and
attempted to cause Jeffrey to discharge Emerson Hillman, Johnny Hillman, Earl
Hulse, C. C. Duncan, Earl Murray, Louis Frank, Frank Rosenbaum, and Charles
Stapleton because of their failure to sign checkoff authorizations and to become
members of Respondent.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. By warning and threatening employees of Jeffrey on April 26 that they would
be required to sign checkoff authorizations and become members of Respondent
as a condition to continued employment by Jeffrey, Respondent restrained and
coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
3. By causing and attempting to cause Jeffrey on April 30 to discharge said em-
ployees because of their failure to sign checkoff authorizations and to become
members of Respondent, Respondent caused and attempted to cause Jeffrey to
discriminate against said employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3), thereby en-
gaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of
the Act.
4. The activities of Respondent as set forth in section II, above, having occurred
in connection with the operation of Jeffrey's business as set forth in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and substantially affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of
the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works , Inc. and Brewery and
Beverage Drivers and Workers , Local No. 67, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America .' Case No. 5-CA-688. November 5, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND AMENDED ORDER
On April 16, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Order in this
case, in which it found, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respond-
1 The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' cer-
tificate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of the charging
Party is hereby amended.
122 NLRB No. 5.
.8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
^ent had engaged in certain conduct violative of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act. The Board, however, reversed the Trial Examiner's finding
that the Respondent had refused to bargain in violation of Section
8(a) (5) of the Act. Therefore the Board further reversed the Trial
Examiner's finding that the strike which began on January 27, 1953,
was an unfair labor practice strike, and did not adopt his recom-
mended remedy in this respect.
Thereafter, the case was considered by the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, upon the Charging Party's
-petition to review and set aside so much of the order as dismissed the
complaint against the Respondent .2
On May 1, 1958, the court handed down its opinion. The court
rejected the Board's conclusion that there had been no refusal to
bargain. In reaching its conclusion the court relied on the Respond-
ent's 8(a) (1) conduct, the lack of any possible good-faith doubt as
to majority status, since the Union had a majority in both units, and,
finally, on the absence of any substantial variance between the unit
found appropriate and that in which the Union's request had been
made. Therefore, as noted above, the court held that the Board's
finding, in the circumstances of this case, could not stand, and it
remanded the case to the Board for proceedings not inconsistent with
its opinion.
In conformity with the court's opinion, which is the law of the
case, we find that the Respondent did refuse to bargain with the
Union, in violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. It follows that
the strike which began on January 27, 1953, and was caused by that
refusal was an unfair labor practice strike, and the strikers are
entitled to reinstatement upon application therefor.
THE REMEDY
At the time of the hearing in this case, four strikers had applied
for reinstatement, which the Respondent had granted. As to some
.of .the others, the Respondent advanced various contentions as to
why it should not be required to offer them reinstatement. The Trial
Examiner did not accept evidence on these matters, holding that they
would properly be considered at the compliance stage. He therefore
ordered the Respondent to offer reinstatement to all the strikers, upon
application, without intending thereby to preclude the Respondent
from offering evidence to support its denial of reinstatement to speci-
fied strikers at an appropriate time. The Trial Examiner further
ordered that strikers applying for reinstatement be made whole for
2 Brewery and Beverage Drivers and Workers , Local No. 67, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFI CIO ( Washington
Coca - Cola Bottling Works , Inc.) v . N.L.R.B., 257 F . 2d 194 (C.A.. D.C.).
WASHINGTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS, INC. 9'
any loss of pay they might suffer by reason of a denial of reinstate-
ment, during the period beginning 5 days after such application.
The record does not indicate whether any applications for reinstate-
ment were made during the period between the issuance of the Inter-
mediate Report and the Board's original order in this case. How-
ever, in the event that such applications were in fact made and not
honored, back pay as to such individuals shall be abated for the period
from the date of our original decision and order to the date of this
Supplemental Decision and Amended Order. In other cases, back
pay shall be computed as set forth in the remedy section of the Inter-
mediate Report.
AMENDED 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 the Respondent, Washington
Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc., Washington, D.C., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Brewery and Beverage
Drivers and Workers, Local No. 67, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the exclusive representative of all its employees in the appropriate
unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
(b) Interrogating and threatening its employees concerning union
affiliation and activities in a manner constituting interference, re-
straint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(c) Changing its practices concerning working conditions for the
purpose of undermining the employees' union activities.
(d) Soliciting employees to discontinue protected concerted activ-
ities.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Brewery and Beverage
Drivers and Workers, Local No. 67, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or 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 in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Brewery and Bev-
rerage Drivers and Workers, Local No. 67, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate
unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon application, offer immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, to all those em-
ployees who went on strike on January 27, 1953, or thereafter, and
who have not already been reinstated to said positions, dismissing if
necessary any persons hired by the Respondent on or after January
27, 1953, who were not in the Respondent's employ on that date, as
provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Make whole the above employees for any loss of pay they may
suffer by reason of the Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them,
in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report
entitled "The Remedy," as modified by "The Remedy" section of the
Board's decision.
(d) 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 to reinstatement under the terms of this order.
(e) Post at its plant in Washington, D.C., copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
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.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Amended Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
a In the event that this Amended Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Supplemental
Decision and Amended Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Amended Order."
WASHINGTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS, INC.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
11
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision and Amended Order of the
National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the poli-
cies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten our employees concerning
union affiliation or activities in a manner constituting interfer-
ence, restraint, or coercion in violation of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT change our practices concerning working condi-
tions for the purpose of undermining our employees' union
activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to discontinue protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Brewery and
Beverage Drivers and Workers, Local No. 67, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or 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 authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Brewery and
Beverage Drivers and Workers, Local No. 67, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees,in the following bargaining unit with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All driver-salesmen, full service drivers, cup route drivers,
and sales trainees at our plant in Washington, D.C.
WE WILL, to the extent required by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and upon the application of our striking employees,
offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their sen-
iority or other rights or privileges, to all those employees who
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
went on strike on January 27, 1953, or thereafter, and who have
not already been reinstated to said positions, dismissing if neces-
sary any persons hired by us on or after January 27, 1953, and
who were not in our employ on that date.
WE wn.L make whole the striking employees specified in the
paragraph next above for any loss of pay they may suffer by
reason of our refusal, if any, to reinstate them.
WASHINGTON CocA-CoLA BoTTLiNO WoRBs, INC.,
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.
The Steck Company 1 and Local No. 118, International Brother-
hood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Local No. 775,
United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO. Case No.
39 RC:1277. November 6, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before C. L. Stephens,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer and Intervenor entered into a 3-year contract effec-
tive from September 1, 1956, through August 31, 1959 . The petition
in this case was filed on July 22, 1958, within the 60-day period pre-
ceding the end of the contract's second year. The Intervenor con-
tends that the petition should be dismissed because (a) its filing
violated the AFL-CIO "No-Raid Pact" to which both Unions are
parties; and (b) it is barred by the contract.
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
122 NLRB No. 2.