L. J. Williams Lumber Co.

L. J. WILLIAMS LUMBER COMPANY 635 retain jurisdiction of the matter so as to permit it to amend, interpret, or apply the remedial order, as circumstances not presently foreseeable may require. It having been found that the unfair labor practices interfered' with the em- ployees' free choice in the election of September 15, 1949, it will consequently be recommended that the election be set aside. 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. Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. 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. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair, labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Respondent did not engage in the following unfair labor practices : (a) Interrogation of employees concerning union affiliation. ; (b) Threatening *employees with discharge if they joined, assisted, or voted for the R. C. I. A. (c) Withholding September 1949 periodic wage increases. (d) Failing and refusing to advise employees whether they would receive the February and September wage increases if the R. C. I. A. won the election. (e) Stating to employees that the Respondent would not bargain with the R. C. I. A. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] L. J. WILLIAMS, D/B/A, L. J. WILLIAMS LUMBER COMPANY AND ADA W. WILLIAMS D/B/A VARNVILLE WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY and PLYWOOD AND VENEER WORKERS LOCAL UNIONS No. 3130 AND 3135, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. Case No. 10-CA-993. October 2, 1951 Supplemental Decision and Order On April 24, 1951, the Board issued its Decision and Order 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, finding, among other things, that by evict- ing James Henderson from a rent-free house,2 the Respondents dis- criminated with respect to his hire or tenure of employment to dis- courage membership in the Union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of 193 NLRB 1672. 2 In its Decision, the Board inadvertently referred to the house from which Henderson was evicted as being "company-owned." The record shows that the house in question was not owned by the Respondents at the time of the eviction ; that the house had been owned by the Respondents but had been sold to a third party, and that, at the time of the eviction and thereafter, the Respondents were acting in a managerial capacity as care- takers of the house 96 NLRB 82. 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Act, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 *(a) (1) thereof. In fact, the complaint alleged that the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by evicting Henderson, and did not allege that such conduct violated Section 8 (a) (3). According, we shall amend our Decision and Order by eliminating our'finding that the Respond- ents violated Section 8 (a) (3) with respect to Henderson's eviction. However, under all the circumstances, there can be no question, and we hereby find, that the Respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof, by evicting Henderson from a rent-free house. Moreover, even though Respond- ent's conduct in evicting Henderson be viewed, because of the limited scope of the complaint, solely as a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) effectuation of the policies of the Act would require the remedy here- tofore prescribed in the Decision and Order. To remedy the unfair labor practice resulting from Henderson's eviction, the Board ordered the Respondents to offer Henderson im- mediate occupancy of his former, or equivalent, living quarters, but only in the event that Henderson has, since the date of the hearing in this case, been reemployed by the Respondents and is currently in their employ. The Board, however, did not indicate in its Decision when the Respondents' obligation to offer such living quarters, as stated above, shall terminate. To clarify our remedial provision, we hereby direct the Respondents to offer Henderson immediate occupancy of his former, or equivalent, living quarters but only in the event that he has been reemployed and was currently employed by the Respondents as of the date of the original Decision and Order. In any event, after reemployment, the Respondents' obligation to furnish living quarters to Henderson shall terminate whenever Henderson ceases to be an em- ployee of the Respondents. In the Decision and Order, the Board also found that the Respond- ents violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by discontinuing certain weekly payments of $15 to Henderson, representing payments for services in transporting employees to and from the Respondents' mill, and adopted the Trial Examiner's recommendations with respect to the remedy for the discontinuance of such payments. Noting that there was "hearsay testimony introduced at the hearing tending to show that Henderson, contrary to his arrangement with the Respond- ents, had charged the individual employees whom he transported a weekly stipend for that purpose," the Trial Examiner recommended that the Respondents reimburse those employees who were transported L. J. WILLIAMS LUMBER COMPANY 637 to the mill by Henderson for any payments which they have made to Henderson for that service and pay the balance of the remuneration which Henderson lost after January 12, 1950, by reason of the Respond- ents' discriminatory withdrawal of the $15 weekly payments to Hen- derson. The Trial Examiner, however, did not clearly indicate in his Intermediate Report as to when the period of reimbursement shall begin and end. To clarify our remedial provision, we shall amend our Decision and Order by directing the Respondents to pay Henderson the $15 weekly payments that he normally would have received, absent the discrimination, from January 12, 1950, the date of discrimination, to the date when the Respondents ceased or shall cease such discrimina- tion, deducting therefrom the amounts, if any, paid by employees to Henderson for transportation services furnished during such period, and to pay the amounts so deducted to the respective employees,,if any, who made such payments to Henderson. Order IT Is HEREBY- ORDERED that our Decision and Order, appearing in Volume 93, at page 1672, in the above-entitled case be, and the same is, hereby amended, as follows : (1) By striking in its entirety the last paragraph beginning on page 1676, and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following : Under the circumstances, we find that, by discontinuing the weekly payments of $15 to Henderson for transporting employees, the Respondents discriminated with respect to his hire or tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Union, in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and interfered with, re- strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof. We also find that, by evicting Henderson from a rent- free house, the Respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof. (2) By striking the last three lines of the first paragraph in the section entitled "The Remedy," on page 1677, and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following : quarters only in the event that Henderson has, since the date of the hearing in this case, been reemployed by the Respondents and is currently in their employ as of the date of this original Decision and Order. In any event, after reemployment, the'Respondents' obligation to furnish living quarters to Henderson shall terminate whenever Henderson ceases to be an employee of the Respondents. 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (3) By inserting between the first and second paragraphs of the section entitled "The Remedy," on page 1677, the following as a sepa- rate paragraph : We shall require the Respondents to pay Henderson the $15 weekly payments that lie normally would have received, absent the discrimination, from January 12, 1950, the date of discrimina- tion, to the date when the Respondents ceased or shall cease such discrimination, deducting therefrom the amounts, if any, paid by employees to Henderson for transportation services furnished during such period, and pay the amounts so deducted to the re- spective employees, if any, who made such payments to Henderson. (4) By inserting in paragraph 2 (d) of the Order, on page 1678, after the words "Intermediate Report," the words "and of the Decision." CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MuRDooK took no part in the con- sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. AMERICAN CAR AND FOUNDRY COMPANY and AMERICAN CAR AND FOUNDRY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 10, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL GUARDS UNION OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-RC-1209.1 October 4,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold X. Summers, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 1 With the permission of the Regional Director , United Steelworkers of America, CIO, the petitioner in Case No . 4-RC-1195 withdrew its petition in that case and intervened in the present case. 2 The motion of the Employer and the Intervenor , United Steelworkers of America, CIO, to dismiss the petition on the ground , inter alia, that the employees involved are not guards within the meaning of the Act is granted for the reasons set forth hereinafter. In view of our disposition of the case, the Employer's motion made after the hearing to incorporate in the record an affidavit setting forth additional facts as to the reassign- ment of the employees involved in this proceeding is hereby denied. 96 NLRB No. 86.