R. H. Osbrink Manufacturing Co.

16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sustained by credible evidence . Accordingly , the undersigned recommends that the amended complaint , in its entirety , be dismissed. 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. The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, at its Dallas , Texas , plant, is engaged in, and at all times material herein has been engaged in, commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The allegations of the amended complaint that Respondent has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, have not been sustained. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] R. H. OSBRINK , M. E. OSBRINK AND BERTON W. BEALS AS TRUSTEE, CO - PARTNERS , DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF R. H. OSBRINK MANUFAC- TURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE- MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA , C.I.O. (UAW-CIO) R. H. OSBRINK , M. E. OSBRINK AND BERTON W. BEALS AS TRUSTEE, CO - PARTNERS , DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF R. H. OSBRINK MANUFAC- TURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE- MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA , G.I.O. (UAW-CIO ), Peti- tioner . Cases Nos. 21-CA-1319 and 21-RC-2262 . July 7, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On April 13 , 1953 , the Board issued a Decision and Order in the above - entitled proceeding .' Thereafter , on April 23, 1953, the Respondent filed a "Motion for Reconsideration , Motion for Rehearing , and Motion to Dismiss ." The General Counsel and the Union filed memoranda in opposition to the Respond- ent's motion . The Respondent filed a reply to these memo- randa. Having duly considered the matter, the Board finds as follows: The Respondent alleges four grounds in support of its motion. They are: (1) The charging labor organization was never in full com- pliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. (2) The complaint is barred by the statute of limitations 11M NLRB 42 106 NLRB No 7 R H. OSBRINK MANUFACTURING COMPANY 17 insofar as it alleges independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (3) The findings of the Board are not supported by probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. (4) The cease-and-desist order is too broad. A. The alleged failure to comply with Section 9 ( f), (g), and (h) of the Act The unfair labor practice charges in this case were filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, CIO (UAW-CIO), Region 6. Throughout the proceedings , whenever reference was made to the charging Union, the designation of that organization followed the description in the charges. The Respondent con- tends that "Region 6" is a separate labor organization within the meaning of the Act, that the Board adopted such a finding by the Trial Examiner to which no exceptions were filed, that "Region 6" has not complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, and that therefore the entire complaint must be dis- missed. The General Counsel and the Charging Union, UAW-CIO, argue in opposition that "Region 6" is not a separate labor organization , but a geographical designation employed as a convenient means of carrying on the internal administrative affairs of the UAW-CIO; and that, in any event, "Region 6" is in compliance. The Board does not agree with the Respondent that it made a finding that "Region 6" is a separate labor organization. The Board merely found that the Charging Union, as described, was a labor organization . It did not decide that "Region 6" apart from its international is a labor organization . In fact, neither the General Counsel nor the Board considered that "Region 6" was a labor organization . For that reason , neither required "Region 6" to show compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. In view of the Respondent's motion, however, the Board has made a more detailed investigation of the status of "Region 6." According to the UAW-CIO constitution, each region repre- sents a geographical area from which local unions within the area select an international executive board member, who is also the regional director for that region. "Region 6" covers the States of Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. The regional director occupies an office created by the constitution. His salary is fixed by the constitution. Under the general direction of the international president , he exercises direct supervision over all organizational activities within his region . He "examine(s) all contracts negotiated within his region before they are signed and submit ( s) them to the Inter- national Executive Board with his recommendation, negotiate(s) disputes with the bargaining committees wherever possible, act(s ) to obtain favorable legislation for labor and work(s) for the general welfare of the membership." (Article 13, sec. 28.) He submits quarterly reports of organizational activity within 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his region to the international president and to the executive board. No local union officer, international officer , or international representative has the authority to negotiate the terms of a contract without first obtaining the approval of the local union. Proposed contracts must also be approved by the local union membership . After such approval , the contract is referred to the regional director for his recommendation to the inter- national executive board for its approval or rejection . Strike action voted by a local union is also submitted to the regional director for forwarding to the executive board with his recom- mendation. The regional director is the only elected officer in the region. The regions do not have separate charters or separate funds. The regional director of "Region 6" has filed the non-Com- munist affidavit required by Section 9 (h) of the Act in his capacity as member of the international executive board. Upon these facts , the Board concludes that " Region 6" is not a separate labor organization , but only an administrative arm or subdivision of the UAW- CIO and therefore was not required to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.' In order to avoid any further ambiguity we shall amend the Board' s Decision and Order to delete the words "Region 6 " wherever they appear in such Decision and Order. B. The statute of limitations The Respondent contends that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations insofar as it alleges independent viola- tions of Section 8 (a) (1). This argument was considered and rejected in the Board' s Decision and Order . We adhere to the rationale of the Cathey Lumber case . ' Moreover , certain of the statements found to have violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act were made in connection with , and were related to, the discriminatory discharge of LeFlore , who was alleged in the charge to have been discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3 ) of the Act . Even under the Respondent ' s interpretation of Section 10 (b), such findings were therefore lawfully made. C. The findings of the Board The Respondent also contends that the findings of the Board are not supported by probative evidence on the record con- sidered as a whole. We reject this contention upon the basis of 2 Claycraft Company v . United Mine Workers , 32 LRRM 2124; Newport News Children's Dress Company. 89 NLRB 442; Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Company, 82 NLRB 932. Compare United Tanners , Inc , 103 NLRB 760; Franklin Tanning Company, 104 NLRB 831 SCathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157, enfd . 185 F. 2d 1021 (C.A. 5), set aside on another ground, 189 F. 2d 428 (C A. 5). HARRIS LANGENBERG IIAT COMPANY 19 the discussion and findings of the Trial Examiner which the Board has adopted." D. The scope of the Board' s order The Respondent contends that the violations found do not justify the scope of the Board ' s order . In view of the Respond- ent's discriminatory discharge of two employees , we consider that the broad cease-and -desist order is necessary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.5 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration , Motion for Rehearing , and Motion to Dismiss" be, and it hereby is, denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Decision and Order is sued herein be , and it hereby is, amended by deleting therefrom the phrase "Region 6" wherever it appears in said Decision and Order , and that the Decision and Order , as printed , shall appear as hereby amended. 4In this part of its argument, the Respondent contends that there is no evidence to support the Trial Examiner 's finding that Wally Watkins was a supervisor . However, R . H. Osbrink included Watkins ' name in a list of top management personnel. 5 Southeastern Pipe Line Company, 104 NLRB 575, and cases cited therein. HARRIS LANGENBERG HAT COMPANY and UNITED HAT- TERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, Petitioner . Case No . 14-RC-2222. July 7, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry G. Carlson, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed . The Employer ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and briefs , in our opinion , adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties. 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] . Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 322615 0 - 54 - 3