Wilson & Co. Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 662 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of WILSON & Co., INC., and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 62, C. I. O.
Case No. 17-C-1300.-Decided April 23, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 20, 1946, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief. Oral argument before the Board at Washington,
D. C., was not requested, and none was held. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's 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 record shows that, on or about August 30, 1945, shortly after
the respondent had twice refused to bargain with the Union, substan-
tially all the union members among the respondent's plant-protection
employees signed a so-called petition which stated that they did not
desire to be represented by the Union, and delivered the petition to
the respondent who retained it without notifying the Union of its
existence until the hearing, at which time the respondent introduced
the petition in evidence. Inasmuch as the Union was not apprised of
the attempted revocation of designation prior to the hearing, we are
of the opinion that the petition did not effectively withdraw the
designation of the Union as the bargaining representative of the.
respondent's plant-protection employees: In any event, assuming
' In addition , we agree with the Trial Examiner that the employees were not free at this
time to revoke the Union 's authority inasmuch as they had just recently designated the
Union as representative in a Board -conducted election.
67 N L It B., No. 83.
662
WILSON & CO., INC. 663
arguendo, that the petition was effective as a revocation in fact of the
Union's authority, we infer and find that the defection in the Union's
ranks was caused by the respondent's unlawful refusals to bargain on
August 1 and 18, 1945, respectively, as more fully set forth in the
Intermediate Report, and that, therefore, the withdrawals do not
reflect the untrammeled expression of the employees' will.2 Under
the circumstances, such defection as a matter of law does not impair
the Union's previously established majority status.3 Moreover, for
the reasons expressed in our Supplemental Decision in Matter o l Karp
Metal Products Co., Inc.,4 we find that the policies of the Act will best
be effectuated by requiring the respondent to bargain collectively with
the Union.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Wilson & Co., Inc., Chicago,
Illinois, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Packinghouse
Workers of America, Local No. 62, C. I. O. as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its plant-protection employees at its Omaha, Nebraska,
plant, excluding the chief of police, the two assistants to the chief
of police, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action;
(b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of United
Packinghouse Workers of America, Local No. 62, C. I. 0., to bargain
collectively with it in behalf of all its plant-protection employees at
its Omaha, Nebraska, plant, excluding the chief of police, the two
assistants to the chief of police, and all other supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
2 The result of an unremedied refusal to bargain with a labor organization , standing
alone, is to discredit the organization in the eyes of the employees , to drive them to a
second choice, or to persuade them to abandon collective bargaining altogether , as occurred
here In seeking to convince us that the employees renounced the Union for reasons
unrelated to the unfair labor practices , an employee called as a witness testified in sub-
stance that he circulated the petition because of "the question of divided loyalty" and a
fear that he "might be called out on strike " It may be assumed that some of those who
signed the petition were motivated in part by factors other than the discouraging effects
of the unfair labor practices committed by the respondent, but any attempt to disentangle
other factors from these unfair labor practices is impossible so long as the unfair labor
practices are unremedied Cf N. L R B v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862, 872
(C C A 2), cert. denied 304 U. S. 576
a N. L R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Association, 310 U. S. 318; Frank Bros. Co. v. N L. R. B.,
321 U S. 702; N. L. R B. v Burke Machine Tool Co, 133 F. (2d) 618, 621 (C. C. A. 6).
' 51 N. L. R. B. 621. See also Matter of Palm Beach Broadcasting Corporation, 63
N L it. B 597 ; Matter of Douglas Silk Products Co., Incorporated , 63 N. L. R B. 1280 ;
Matter of Semi-Steel Casting Company, 66 N. L. it. B. 713.
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Packinghouse
Workers of America, Local No. 62, C. I. O. as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of all its plant-protection employees at its Omaha,
Nebraska, plant, excluding the chief of police, the two assistants to
the chief of police, and all other supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action;
(b) Post at its plant at Omaha, Nebraska, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report herein marked "Appendix A." 5
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Seventeenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respond-
ent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent to insure that these notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Harry L. Browne, for the Board.
Mr. J. L. Cockrill, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. L. H Fuqua, of Omaha, Nebr, for
the respondent.
Messrs. Patrick Ratigan and Arthur E Williams, of Omaha, Nebr., for the
Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local
No. 62, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region
(Kansas City, Missouri), issued its complaint dated January 10, 1946, against
Wilson & Co., Inc, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (6) and (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
0 Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph the words "RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER" and substituting
in lieu thereof the words "A DECISION AND ORDER "
WILSON & CO., INC. 665
of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance
that: (1) all militarized plant protection employees of the respondent at its
Omaha plant, exclusive of the chief of police, the two assistants to the chief
of police, and all other supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining; (2) on or about July 12, 1945, at an
election duly conducted by the Board, a majority of the employees in the appro-
priate unit designated the Union as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining; (3) at all times since July 25, 1945, the Union has been
the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in said appropriate
unit; (4) on or about August 1 and August 18, the Union requested the respond-
ent to bargain collectively with respect to the employees in the said appropriate
unit; (5) since on or about August 1, 1945, and at all times thereafter the
respondent, in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act, has refused to bargain
collectively with said Union, respecting the said employees; and (6) by the
foregoing acts the respondent, in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act, has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent, in its answer dated January 17, 1946, admits its refusal to
bargain with the Union on the dates alleged in the complaint, but denies the
appropriateness of the unit involved and that the Union has at all times since
July 25, 1945, been the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the said unit
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Omaha, Nebraska, on January 29,
1946, before Irving Rogosin, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel,
and the Union by its representatives. All parties participated in the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. All parties were
afforded an opportunity to argue orally upon the record and to file briefs with
the undersigned. Counsel for the Board and for the respondent argued orally
upon the record No briefs have been filed.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Wilson & Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal office and place
of business in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the purchase and slaughter of
livestock, and the processing, sale and distribution of meat and meat products.
This proceeding is concerned solely with the respondent's Omaha, Nebraska, plant.
During the year 1945, the total purchases of the Omaha plant exceeded $500,000
in value, of which approximately 40 percent was received in interstate commerce.
During the same year, sales of the Omaha plant exceeded $500,000 in value,
of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State of
Nebraska. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.'
1 These findings are based upon a stipulation entered into by the parties at the hearing,
reference being made to the commerce findings in the Board 's Decision and Direction of
Election in Matter of Wilson & Co , Inc, 61 N. L. It . B. 1614.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local No. 62, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The certification of the Union; the refusal to bargain
The Union has been the collective bargaining representative of employees of
respondent at its Omaha plant in two separate units, one, a unit of production
and maintenance employees, the other a unit of restaurant employees. On July
25, 1945, following a Decision and Direction of Election,' and an election' the
Board certified the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative, in
a third unit, of "all militarized plant-protection employees" of the respondent
at its Omaha, Nebraska, plant, "excluding the chief of police, the two assistants
to the chief of police, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action."
The respondent conceded at the hearing, as it did in its answer, that on August 1
and August 18, 1945, the Union requested it to bargain collectively as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the above-described unit, and that
the respondent refused. The grounds for its refusal are discussed hereinafter.
B. Demilitarization; effect on appropriateness of unit
On or about August 28, 1945, the respondent's plant-protection employees were
demilitarized, and each was awarded a certificate of meritorious service as a
member of the Auxiliary Military Police. Except for their demilitarization since
the Board's certification, there has been no change in the status or the nature
and extent of the duties of these employees. Now, as then, their duties are and
have been monitorial While there is some conflict in the testimony as to whether
all the plant-protection employees had been deputized throughout the period of
their employment, before and during the war, and since their demilitarization,
the record in the representation proceeding indicates that these employees had,
at all times prior to that hearing, been so deputized. Upon the basis of the
foregoing and upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that the plant-pro-
tection employees, have, at all times material herein, been deputized.
Although the Board, in its decision and certification in the representation
proceeding, described the plant-protection employees as "militarized", it is ap-
parent that by reason of their functions, duties and status they constitute an
appropriate unit, apart from the circumstance that they were, at the time of
their certification, militarized That was a concomitant factor The Board has
frequently held that plant-protection employees whose duties, as here, are chiefly
monitorial, constitute a separate appropriate unit. Although their designation by
the Board as "militarized" plant-protection employees constituted formal recog-
nition of their additional obligation of allegiance to the government during the
war, their subsequent demilitarization does not affect the basic reasons, namely
their monitorial duties, for establishing them in a separate unit In other words,
the plant-protection employees, on the basis of these monitorial duties, have re-
2 See, Matter of Wilson t Co., Inc., supra.
s Of approximately 16 eligible voters, 13 participated in the election, 10 voting for, and 3
against the Union.
WILSON & CO., INC. 667
mained the same identifiable group, notwithstanding their demilitarization,
which the Board found to constitute an appropriate unit.
C. The notice of revocation of designation
On or about August 24, 1945, Tames Jensen, one of the respondent's plant-pro-
tection employees and a union member, approached Chief of Police Charles H.
Gray and informed him that he and other plant-protection employees disapproved
of the "walkout" of production employees on the "killing floor" which had oc-
curred earlier that day. Jensen stated that he intended to circulate a petition
among the plant-protection employees expressing their dissatisfaction, and asked
for Gray's assistance. Gray informed him that he would have nothing to do with
it and referred him to L. H. Fuqua, the respondent's industrial relations man-
ager at the Omaha plant. Jensen communicated with Fuqua and informed him
that the plant-protection employees were dissatisfied with the "set-up" and in-
tended to circulate a petition. Jensen also asked him to assist in the preparation
of a petition, but Fuqua refused, stating that he would have nothing to do with
it ; that the respondent was refusing to bargain with respect to plant-protection
employees; and that it was entirely "up to" those employees.
As of August 30, 1945, the date of the petition, 12 plant-protection employees
had signed a petition stating merely that they did "not desire that C. I. 0 -
P. W. O. C. Union . . . represent [them] as the bargaining unit (sic)."' Jensen
initiated the petition and procured the signatures of two employees in addition to
his own. Others signed the petition in the "watchman's shanty" at the front gate.
There is no evidence that the respondent inspired, sponsored, or authorized the pe-
tition, or permitted the same to be circulated during working time. It was deliv-
ered to Fuqua by Stephen Lytle, one of the plant-protection employees, and
remained in the respondent's files until the time of the hearing. No attempt was
made by any of these employees to revoke the designation of the Union as a
collective bargaining representative beyond this, nor were any withdrawals of
authorizations delivered to the Union. The respondent at no time prior to the
hearing notified the Union of the purported withdrawal petition.
According to employee James Jensen, he and other plant-protection employees
had been prompted to execute the withdrawal petition by misgivings regarding
the possible conflict between their allegiance to the Union and their obligation to
the respondent. It was, according to them, their conviction, that if they be-
longed to the Union, they would be required to go on strike in the event that
production employees decided to do so. The plant-protection employees did not,
however, join the production employees on the occasion of the alleged walk-out on
the "killing floor", nor did they participate in the more recent widespread strike
in the meat packing industry.
D. Respondent's contentions; conclusions
The respondent advances the following grounds for its refusal to bargain:
(1) that a unit of plant-protection employees is inappropriate since they comprise
representatives of management; (2) that although the plant-protection employees
have been demilitarized since the Board's certification, their status as deputized
plant-protection employees renders such a unit inappropriate; (3) that inasmuch
as the Union represents employees of the respondent at its Omaha plant in two
separate units, one of the production and maintenance employees, the other of
The genuineness of the signatures is not in issue Jensen identified his own signature
as well as those which he had obtained , and Chief of Police Gray identified all the signa-
tures appearing on the petition as those of plant-protection employees.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
restaurant employees, it cannot represent plant-protection employees in the same
local; and (4) that since the Union no longer represents a majority of the re-
spondent's plant-protection employees, the respondent is under no obligation to
bargain with the Union in their behalf.
The respondent's first contention was raised during the hearing upon the peti-
tion for investigation and certification of representatives and rejected by the
Board. The functions, duties and status of the plant-protection employees were
analyzed there and the contention decided adversely to the respondent. No new
facts were adduced at the hearing in the instant proceeding warranting a different
result. As has already been indicated, the only change in the status of these em-
ployees concerned their demilitarization. This change militates against the
respondent's contention based on their militarization. Moreover, the issue of
whether militarized plant-protection employees are employees within the meaning
of the Act, is now moot insofar as it relates to the plant-protection employees of
this respondent. The respondent's continuing reliance upon the E C. Atkins Co.,
and Jones & Laughlin cases'' on the ground of the militarization of these employees
is therefore inapposite.
The respondent's contention (2) that although plant-protection employees have
been demilitarized since the Board's certification, their status as deputized plant
guards renders such a unit inappropriate, is untenable. In the first place, as the
Board has already decided, militarized plant-piotection employees constitute an
appropriate unit 6 Secondly, the Board has frequently decided that deputized
plant guards may constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.' No convincing reason has been advanced for departing from this
position.
As to contention (3), the Board has already determined in a number of cases,
including the representation proceeding affecting the present case, that plant-
protection employees may be represented in a separate unit by the same union
which represents production and maintenance employees.' The respondent fur-
ther argues, however, that it has reason to anticipate that the Union may not
observe the separation of units, delineated by the Board, in actual collective bar-
gaining, particularly in view of the fact that the Union has already prevailed
upon the respondent to include the unit of restaurant employees with production
and maintenance employees in a single "master contract." It should be apparent
that, although an employer may not be required to bargain with a duly designated
union upon the basis of a unit other than the one certified by the Board, it may,
as appears to have been the case here, voluntarily agree to do so. Whether the
Union will attempt to require the respondent to bargain respecting the plant-
protection employees on some basis other than that prescribed by the Board, is
W. L. R. B v E C. Atkins Co ., 147 F. ( 2d) 730 (C. C. A 7) ; N L R. B v Jones if
Laughlin Steel Corp , 146 F. (2d) 718 (C. C. A. 6). Note, however, that the Supreme Court
granted the Board ' s petition for writs of certiorari in those cases , and the judgments of the
Circuit Courts were vacated and the cases remanded for reconsideration. See also, Matter
of Armour and Company, 63 N L. R. B. 1200.
6 See Matter of General Chemical Company, 64 N. L. R. B. 357. The various contentions
raised by the respondent have been raised in a series of cases before the Board and rejected.
See also, Matter of Bethlehem Supply Company , 63 N. L R B 937 ; Matter of Aluminum
Company of America, 63 N. L it. B 828 ; Matter of Standard Steel Spring Company, 62
N. L. R. B 660; Matter of American Steel Foundries , 64 N L R B 1172 ; Matter of
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, 64 N. L. R B. 1284; Matter of Cudahy Packing
Company, 65 N. L. R B 10, and cases cited. See also, Matter of Armour and Company,
supra.
7 .See Matter of Bethlehem Supply Company , 63 N. L . R. B. 937 ; Matter of American
Steel Foundries , 64 N. L . it. B. 1172; Matter of Standard Steel Spring Company, 62
N L R B 660
8 Matter of Wilson if Co., Inc, supra , and cases cited therein.
WILSON & CO., INC. 669
entirely conjectural. In any event, the Board has indicated the extent to which
it expects separation of units to be maintained where*a unit of plant-protection
employees is represented by a union representing production and maintenance
employees. The Board dealt with this issue in some detail in the Standard Steel
Spring case,' where, after dismissing the contention that membership by plant-
protection employees in a union also representing production and maintenance
employees "tends to undermine the honesty of guards or their competence to
execute their duties satisfactorily", the Board said,
We are convinced that our practice of segregating such employees in
separate bargaining units is sufficient to protect the special status of these
employees A representative of the [union] stated at the hearing that both
units of employees would be represented by one local organization, but that
it is the [union's] intention that negotiations concerning the plant-protec-
tion personnel be carried on separately and result in a separate contract
with the Company.
We contemplate that the separation of the bargaining units in their negotia-
tions with the Company and their day to day activities will be one of fact,
not merely form, and shall be reflected in all bargaining between the Com-
pany and any duly designated bargaining representative as well as in negotia-
tions for a separate contract for the plant-protection employees.
There is no reason to assume that the Union here will not abide by the Board's
determination requiring the Union to bargain in behalf of plant-protection em-
ployees as a separate unit The respondent's position, that the Union has held
no meetings of plant-protection employees, has collected no dues, and ap-
pointed no separate bargaining committees, affords no justification for its re-
fusal to bargain. Moreover, the emphasis placed by the respondent upon the
Union's failure to appoint a separate bargaining committee, indicates that the
respondent apparently interprets the Board's decisions as imposing a limitation
upon the right of the Union to designate any persons or committees to represent
members who are employees in any of several appropriate units. The under-
signed does not construe the Board's decision in the Standard Steel Spring case,
and similar cases to require the establishment of separate bargaining and
grievance committees to represent the plant-protection employees.10 Moreover,
the record in the instant case sufficiently indicates that the Union contemplates
establishing a separate bargaining committee in behalf of the plant-protection
employees as soon as the respondent undertakes to bargain with it.
The respondent's remaining defense, namely, loss of majority, obviously
cannot affect or meet thq allegations of refusal to bargain on August 1 and
August 18, 1945, on which dates the respondent refused the Union's request to
bargain. The respondent's reliance upon the alleged loss of majority, therefore,
can relate only to the allegation that it has continued to refuse to bargain
since August 30, 1945, the date of the asserted revocation of designation of
the Union.
It has been well-established by the Board, and recognized by the Courts, that
the Board may rely upon certification of a bargaining agent, especially after an
election directed by the Board, as evidence of the authority of the bargaining agent
0 Matter of Standard Steel Spring Company, 62 N L. R. B. 660.
m See Matter of The Hancock Brick & Tile Company, 44 N. L R B 920, 932, where the
Board said , "It is well settled that an employer may not dictate the personnel of the group
that his employees select to represent them ; that is the necessary and exclusive right of
the employees "
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to bargain with the employer for a reasonable period even in the face of attempts
by the employees to revoke the agent's authority. Such certification by the
Board, the most reliable means of ascertaining the employees' wishes, must have
some measure of permanence if the statutory purpose of stability in bargaining
relations is to be achieved." It will be noted that in the instant case, the at-
tempted revocation occurred not more than 5 weeks after the certification by the
Board. Furthermore, even though the Union's loss of majority might have re-
sulted from circumstances to which the respondent in no way contributed, the
bargaining relationship, once rightfully established, must be permitted to exist
and function for a reasonable period in which it can be given a fair chance to
succeed. Otherwise the policies of the Act to promote collective bargaining would
be frustrated and the recalcitrant employer would be permitted to profit from
its own wrongdoing if it were allowed to inquire into the continued majority
status of the bargaining representative after his ilAlawful refusal to bargain."
It is significant that in the instant case the respondent at no time advanced any
reason for its refusal to bargain, except that implicit in its position at the hearing
on the representation proceeding and as reiterated herein with respect to the
appropriate, unit. In particular, the respondent at no time posited its refusal
to bargain on the alleged loss of majority until the hearing in the instant case.
As a matter of fact, it was not until this hearing that the Union was apprised
of the attempted revocation of designation. Furthermore, the undersigned finds,
in accordance with the credible and uncontradicted testimony of Arthur E. Wil-
liams, president of the local union, that, when he requested the respondent's per-
sonnel manager at its principal place of business at Chicago, Illinois, in December
1945, to bargain with respect to the plant-protection employees he refused with-
out asserting any claim of loss of majority as a ground therefor.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record, the undersigned
finds that all plant-protection employees of the respondent at its Omaha, Ne-
braska, plant, excluding the chief of police, the two assistants to the chief of
police, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute an approprite unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining ; that the said appropriate unit will insure to the em-
ployees therein the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective
bargaining, and will otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. The under-
signed further finds that at all times material herein the Union was the duly
designated bargaining representative of a majority of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a)
of the Act the Union was at all such times, and now is, the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment. The undersigned further finds that the respondent on
August 1 and August 18, 1945, and at all times thereafter, including December
1945, has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the appropriate unit, and has thereby interfered
with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
11 Appalechtan Electric Power Co. v . N. L. R. B, 140 F. (2d) 217 (C. C. A. 4 ) (where
the attempted revocation was made within 2 months of the Board ' s certification) ;
N. L. R B . v. Century Oxford Mfg. Corp., 140 F. ( 2d) 541 (C C A. 2), cert. den 323 U. S.
714 (where the attempted revocation was made within 6 weeks of the Board ' s certification).
12 Franks Bros. Co. v. N . L. R. B , 321 U. S. 702.
WILSON & CO., INC.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
671
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent 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 commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain afiirma-
t ive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that
the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. It will therefore be
recommended that the respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the
Union as such representative.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
' 1 United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local No. 62, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 All plant-protection employees at the respondent's Omaha, Nebraska, plant,
excluding the chief of police, the two assistants to the chief of police, and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3 United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local No. 62, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations , was on July 25, 1945, and at all times
thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in the
aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4 By refusing on August 1 and August 18, 1945, and at all times thereafter,
including December 1945, to bargain collectively with United Packinghouse
Workers of America, Local No. 62, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RE COMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon then
entire record in the case, the undersigned hereby recommends that the respondent,
Wilson & Co, Inc, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Packinghouse Workers of
America, Local No. 62, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
as the exclusive representative of all its plant-protection employees at its
Omaha, Nebraska, plant, excluding the chief of police, the two assistants to
the chief of police, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of United Packinghouse
Workers of America, Local No. 62, C. I. O. to bargain collectively with it in
behalf of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Packinghouse Workers
of America, Local No 62, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement ;
(b) Post at its plant at Omaha, Nebiaska, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix A " Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director of the Seventeenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the re-
respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure
that these notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of this intermediate Report, what steps the
respondent has taken to coiupl- herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recomnienda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
respondent to take the action aforesaid
As further provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations
of the National Labor Relations Boaid, Series 3, as amended, effective November
27, 1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from
the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant
to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building , Washington 25, D C, an original and four copies of a
statement in writing, setting foith such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceedings (including rulings upon all
motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with
the Regional Director As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order
transferring the case to the Board.
IRVING ROGOSIN,
Trial Examiner.
Dated February 20, 1946.
WILSON & CO., INC.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
673
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not in any manner interfere with the efforts of the United Pack-
inghouse Workers of America, Local No. 62, C. I, 0., to bargain collectively
with us in behalf of the employees in the bargaining unit described herein;
We will not refuse to bargain with United Packinghouse Workers of
America, Local No 62, C I O , as the exclusive representative of our
employees in the bargaining unit described herein ;
We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union as
the exclusive representatives of all employees in the bargaining unit described
herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions
of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All plant-protection employees at our Omaha, Nebraska, plant, excluding
the chief of police, the two assistants to the chief of police, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom-
mend such action.
WILSON & CO, INC,
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.
692148-46-vol. 67-44