Atlas Life Insurance Co.

742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and LOCAL No. 948, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS . Case No. 16-CA-304. May 21, 1951 Decision and Order On February 19, 1951, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore 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 , as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Respondent's request for oral argu- ment is hereby denied, inasmuch as the record and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties . The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 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, Atlas Life Insurance Com- pany, Tulsa, Oklahoma, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local No. 948, Interna- tional Union of Operating Engineers , as the exclusive representative of all its employees at the Atlas Life Building, Tulsa, Oklahoma, who are required to hold a city engineer 's license and are engaged in the operation and maintenance of the heating, ventilating , air condition- ing, and other machinery in the building, excluding office and clerical employees , elevator operators , janitors, janitresses, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member- ship, activities , or sympathies. 94 NLRB No. 103. ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 743 (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza- tion, to form labor organizations, or to join or assist Local No. 948, International , Union of Operating Engineers, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining 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 a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local No. 948, Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers as the exclusive representa- tive of all the employees in the above-mentioned appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its building in Tulsa, Oklahoma, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked Appendix A.' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being signed by the 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 said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director 'for the Sixteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Appendix A NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering with the efforts of LOCAL NO. 948, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF 'In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order" the words , "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing " 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OPERATING ENGINEERS, to negotiate for or represent the employees in the bargaining unit described below : WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union membership, activities, or sympathies. WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with the above- named union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all em- ployees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All employees at the Atlas Life Building, Tulsa, Okla- homa, who are required to hold a city engineer's license and are engaged in the operation and maintenance of the heating, ventilating, air conditioning and other machinery in the building, excluding office and clerical employees, elevator op- erators, janitors, janitresses, watchmen, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Employer. By ------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated -------------------- 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 Mr. James R. Webster, for the General Counsel Messrs. Jack E. Campbell and-Harry D. Moreland, (Doerner, Rinehart Stuart) of Tulsa, Okla., for the Respondent. Mr. C. C. Callicoat, of Tulsa, Okla, for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed by Local No. 948, International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued a complaint dated December 14, 1950, against Atlas Life Insurance Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 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 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charge, the complaint, and 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 the Respondent: (1) in June 1950 refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit ; ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 745 (2) interrogated its employees concerning their union affiliations; and (3) by this conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed by the Act. On January 4, 1951, the Respondent filed its answer, in which it denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Tulsa, Oklahoma, on January 17, 1951, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by coun- sel, the Union by an official. All participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing ruling was reserved upon a motion by the Respondent to dismiss the complaint. Disposition of this motion is made in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations appearing below. Counsel for Gen- eral Counsel waived opportunity to argue orally and to file briefs. Counsel for the Respondent argued orally and has filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Atlas Life Insurance Company is an Oklahoma corporation, having its princi- pal office and place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and is engaged in the life insurance business and the operation of an office building, in which its own business is housed- and conducted. It is licensed to do business in Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oregon, and California. Throughout these States it has in effect insurance in excess of $75,000,000. Although the Respondent denies that the Board has jurisdiction, it concedes that its present operations and employee relations are substantially the same as in 1949. On May 20, 1949, in its Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 16-RC-330 (unpublished) the Board determined that the Respondent "is engaged in commerce within'the meaning of the Act."' II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local No. 948, International Union of Operating Engineers is a labor organiza- tion admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Refusal to Bargain; Interference, Restraint, and Coercion Following the Board's decision above referred to, an election was held among the Respondent's employees. The Union, which was the petitioner in that case, lost the election. A year later, on June 15, 1950, C. C. Callicoat, business representative of the Union, called upon Johnson D. Hill, president of the Respondent, and requested ' In that case the Board found : "The Employer urges that its operation of the Atlas Life Building, which is involved in this proceeding , has only a remote effect upon com- merce. However, the Employer , which concededly is engaged in interstate commerce, has its home office in the building and leases the remaining space in the building to other commercial tenants, some of which are engaged in interstate commerce . We find that the operation of the Atlas Life Building is not separable from the Employer 's other activities and, therefore , that for the purposes of this proceeding, the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act." 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that he bargain with the Union. The next day Johnson sent the following letter to the Union : On yesterday Mr. C C Callicoat called on me and requested my Company sign an agreement under the terms of which he would be a bargaining repre- sentative for our building engineers. Since his visit I have checked the situation with our building engineers and find that they are all members of your union All of the craft work in the Atlas Building is done by union representatives, including the painters and carpenters, so as far as I can find out the unions have everything there is to have in our operations. We have no problems on any score, and therefore no need for a representa- tive. We only have four engineers whom we see personally every day, and it would be rather fantastic to have an intermediary represent us in any, possible conversation with these few men whom we know better than an intermediary would ever know. We anticipate no difficulties of any kind, unless they are artificially created by entii ely extraneous activity Since both the union members and the Company seem to be getting along fine, we have no current occasion to appoint anyone for the purpose of settling difficulties which do not exist. On August 17, 1950, the Union filed with the Board a petition for representa- tion in Case No. 16-RC-59S, claiming as appropriate the same unit found to be appropriate by the Board in the preceding representation case. On September 21 the Union withdrew its petition and on the same clay filed its charge in the instant proceeding, alleging refusal to bargain A representative of the Board wrote to Hill concerning the matters raised in the charge. On October 5 Hill replied as follows : I have your letter of yesterday concerning a charge you say was filed by Mr. C C. Callicoat and which I did not know existed. I had what I thought was a very pleasant visit with Mr. Callicoat, and supposed he had gone back to finish his medical education by this time. We employ union men belonging to unions other than the Engineer's union, and I think have always been considered a good friend to the Union move- ment. Our organization, along all lines, is too small from any standpoint to either require or justify more than we have been doing. I do not have before me a copy of my letter to which you refer, but it is my recollection that after Mr. Callicoat's visit I inquired of our engineers whether or not they were members of the Union and they told me that they were. I also made inquiries as to the union scale of pay and saw to it that we were paying this scale Since there did not seem to be any occasion for argument about any subject I wrote the letter which apparently you have. As stated above, we have always been considered a friend of Labor, and I have personally done some good turns for the organization as a whole, particularly when as a member of the Legislature I took care of nuisance legislation. It is my personal feeling that there is still no occasion for any argument, and if there is going to be one I should withdraw from the picture and refer the whole matter to our Legal Department. I think that unless and until there is some complaint from some of our employees there is really nothing to talk about and trust you will agree with me. I am not advised as to the jurisdictional questions involved, but do not intend that any statement of mine should have any bearing on such questions one way or another. ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 747 'Thereafter the complaint was issued. The complaint alleges, the Board found in Case No. 16-RC-330, the Respondent offered no convincing evidence to the contrary, and the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that a unit of the Re- spondent's employees appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act consists of : All employees at the Atlas Life Building, Tulsa, Oklahoma, who are re- quired to hold a city engineer's license and are engaged in the operation and maintenance of the heating, ventilating, air conditioning and other machinery in the building, exclusive of office and clerical employees, elevator operator, janitor, janitress, watchmen and supervisory employees. The complaint alleges, facts stipulated by the parties establish, and the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by June 1, 1950, a majority of the employees in the above-described unit had designated the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is therefore concluded and found that on June 1, 1950, and at all 'times since then, the Union has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in the said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. The two letters of Hill, above quoted, plainly establish and the Trial Examiner concludes and finds: (1) that on June 16, 1950, and thereafter, the Respondent refused to bargain with the Union; (2) that the Respondent interrogated em- ployees as to their membership in the Union; and (3) that by such refusal and interrogation the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, 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 ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. v. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since it has been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, it will be recommended that upon request the Respondent bargan collectively with the Union. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local No. 948, International Union of Operating Engineers, is a labor rirganization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2 All of the Respondent's employees at the Atlas Life Building, Tulsa, Okla- homa, who are required to hold a city engineer's license and are engaged in the operation and maintenance of the heating, ventilating, air conditioning and other machinery in the building, exclusive of office and clerical employees, elevator 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operator , janitor, janitress , watchmen , and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. Local No . 948, International Union of Operating Engineers , was on June 1, 1950, and at all times since then has been the exclusive representative of all employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit the Respondent has engaged. in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 5. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of 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 (a) (1), of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] FARBER BROTHERS , INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO- MOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO. Case No. 32-CA-12;0. May V, 1951 Decision and Order On January 17, 1951, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter- mediate 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, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. In addition, the Re- spondent requested oral argument. However, because the record and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, the request for oral argument is hereby denied. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The 94 NLRB No. 111.