Krambo Food Stores, Inc.

742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ger, the packing foreman, the labor contractor, and all other super- visors as defined by the Act. 5. Because the seasonal employment peak for the Auburn and New- castle sheds has passed, we shall not direct that elections be held at this time. Following our customary practice in seasonal industries, we shall direct that elections be held at or about the time of the em- ployment peak of the next packing season, on a date to be determined by the Regional Director, among the employees in the appropriate units who are employed during the payroll period immediately pre- ceding the date of issuance of the notices of election.' [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] * See Imperial Garden GFrowera, 91 NLRB 1034, 1040. KRAMBO FOOD STORES, INC. and GROCERY CLERKS UNION, LOCAL No. 1469, RETAIL C^iLLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2379. December 2, 1952 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives On August 14, 1952, the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Re- gion issued his report on objections, in which he recommended that the Intervenor's objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certi- fied as majority representative of the employees in the unit set forth in the Board's Decision and Direction of Election? Thereafter, the Intervenor filed exceptions to the report on objections.z The Board has considered the report on objections, the exceptions thereto, and the entire record in this case, and finds that the exceptions do not raise any substantial or material issues with respect to the elec- tion.3 Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the following addi- tions and modifications : In the latter part of its tenth objection, the Intervenor asserts that an AFL representative who was also a member of the Wage Stabilization Board, Business Agent Stadelmann, threatened to block any wage increase sought by the Intervenor if it won the election. 198 NLRB 1320. 2 On October 29, 1952, the Employer moved for reconsideration of the Board's Decision and Direction of Election of April 29, 1952, and for other relief. No sufficient reason was shown for finding the motion to be timely . The motion is accordingly denied. See Harcourt and Co., 100 NLRB 1383. 8 The Intervenor and the Employer moved for a hearing . As there are no substantial questions of fact at issue, and as the positions of the parties are in our opinion adequately presented , the motions are denied. 101 NLRB No. 132 KRAMBO FOOD STORES, INC. 743 The Intervenor claims that this statement had a coercive effect, and therefore constituted conduct affecting the result of the election. As the Regional Director reported, on January 20, 1952, 4 months before the election, Stadelmann allegedly said : "Krambo employees will never get an increase as long as they belong to the [Intervenor], because I am on the Wage Stabilization (Board) and I'll see that they don't get any increases." We agree with the Regional Director that the alleged statement was too remote in time to have constituted interference. Assuming that it would have been improper campaign propaganda which would normally have had some coercive effect when made, any such effect was surely dissipated by the passage of 4 months between its utterance and the election 4 In view of these circumstances, we shall adopt the Regional Director's recommenda- tion with respect to Stadelmann's alleged remark. The Intervenor also asserts in effect that Stadelmann's action in inducing the Wage Stabilization Board to prevent the effectuation of its negotiated increase, only 2 days before the election, was conduct interfering with the result of the election. As the Regional Director reported, about 1 week before the election the Employer and the Intervenor agreed to a wage increase, to become effective 2 days before the election. When Stadelmann notified the Wage Stabilization Board of the proposed increase, that Board informed the Employer that it would "proceed against the Company" if the raise was put into effect. There is no allegation, nor does the record suggest, that Stadelmann participated in any Wage Stabilization Board decision to notify the Employer. In any event, as found by the Regional Director, the Employer's failure to effectuate the agreed last-minute wage increases constituted withdrawal from an action which might well have interfered with the employees' free choice in the election and formed the basis for cross-objections. Under these circumstances, we find nothing in Stadelmann's action which would warrant setting the election aside. Accordingly, the Regional Director's recommendations are hereby adopted in their entirety. Since the tally of ballots shows that a majority of all valid votes cast were for the Petitioner, we shall certify that organization as the collective bargaining representative of all the Employer's employees in the appropriate unit. Certification of Representatives IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Grocery Clerks Union, Local 1469, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit 4 Greater New York Broadcasting Company ( WNEW), 85 NLRB 414. 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. RIDGE GROWERS, INCORPORATED and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. Case No. 10-CA-1189. December 3, 195. Decision and Order On March 12, 1952, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief. The Board 1 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 exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case 2 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3 I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Houston, Murdock , and Styles]. 2 The request by the Respondent for oral argument is denied , because the record, excep- tions, and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. We assert jurisdiction herein on the basis of the Respondent's direct out-of-State ship- ment annually of goods valued at $25,000 or more. Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Lsmlted, 91 NLRB 618 ; ef. Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the 30-day layoff of Mary Hodge was actually an outright discriminatory discharge , and that Hodge was , therefore, not obligated to apply for reinstatement at the end of 30 days. Hodge , along with four other employees, had been designated for discharge by the Respondent because of their union activities. The four other employees were, as we have found , either discriminatorily discharged, or discriminatorily refused reemployment the following season. Moreover, these unfair labor practices and the other unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent reveal an attitude on the part of the Respondent of complete opposition to the organizational efforts of its employees. Under such circumstances, we find that the Respondent had no intention of rehiring Hodge at the end of 30 days , but rather intended, and therefore effected, a permanent discharge. We shall, therefore, order the Respondent to offer reinstatement to Hodge with unabated back pay as hereinafter provided . See N. L. R. B. v . Red Rock Co., et at., 187 F. 2d 76 ( C. A. 5), enforcing as modified 84 NLRB 521; 341 U. S. 950, cert. denied. We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner was biased because he resolved every material conflict of evidence in favor of the General Counsel and against the Respondent. N. L. R. B. v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 337 U. S. 656, reversing and remanding 167 F. 2d 126 (C. A. 6). 101 NLRB No. 14&