Western Aluminum Of Oregon Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1191 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

WESTERN ALUMINUM OF OREGON INCORPORATED, ETC. 1191
All our employees are free to become or remain members of Retail Clerks Union
Local 1116, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or of any other labor
organization, or to refrain therefrom except to the extent such right may be affected
by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Labor Management Relations
Act of 1947, as amended.
W. T. GRANT COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee, if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, of her right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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, 316 Federal
Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis 1, Minnesota, Telephone No. 339-
0112, Extension 2601, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Western Aluminum of Oregon Incorporated, Western Aluminum
Corporation (a California Corporation ), and Oregon Screen
Corporation (an Oregon Corporation ) and General Teamsters
Local No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case No. 36-
-CA-1227. October 25, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 25, 1963, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
I-Ie also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dis-
missal of such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
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' exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following addition.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondents
violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by depriving employees of bene-
fits in retaliation for their joining the Union, and Section 8(a) (3) by
discharging Laurel Williams, one of their three employees, because of
his union activities. The Trial Examiner further found that while
144 NLRB No. 112.
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union, on January 2,1963, and at all times material thereafter, was
the representative of these employees in an appropriate unit, the
Respondents had not refused to bargain with the Union in violation
of Section 8 (a) (5), as alleged in the complaint, because the Union
had tmade no request for bargaining. On the ground, however, that
the Respondents, by their unlawful conduct, had shown a disposition
to evade any obligation to bargain with the Union, the Trial Exam-
iner recommended that the Respondents be required to bargain with
the Union upon request.
The Respondents excepted generally to the findings that they had
engaged in violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and to the recom-
mended remedial order in its entirety, but took no specific exception
to the recommended order to bargain. Thereafter, within the time
allowed for exceptions, the Respondents also filed a motion requesting
the Board to reject the Trial Examiner's recommendation that they
be required to bargain with the Union upon request on the asserted
ground that there had been a complete turnover of the employees in
the unit subsequent to the hearing. We find no merit in this conten-
tion. Where, as here, the Union has clearly established its majority
status prior to the Respondents' unfair labor practices, and the Re-
spondents have engaged in unfair labor practices aimed at destroying
the Union's majority and disclosing