Precision Scientific Co.

PRECISION SCIENTIFIC COMPANY 525 tion 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. As the Trial Examiner sees it the remarks of Judge Hastie speaking for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the Jarka case as regards the insistence of the General Counsel in his argument before that court to make additional findings of violations of 8 (b),(1) of the Act are applicable here. There the court said, inter alia, "... We understand that the Board would like to have two strings to its bow. But we have tested the one and found it strong and entirely adequate. That we think is enough for this case. ..." 12 So is it here. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE It is found that 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 com- merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the Respondent upon request bargain 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 388 of the International Molders and Foundry Workers Union, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees at Respondents' Kalamazoo branch, including plant clerical employees, but excluding office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, plant guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. The Union was on or about May 7, 1953, and at all times thereafter and material herein the certified exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of all the employees in the appropriate unit as described immediately above, within the meaning of the Act. 4. By refusing on or about June 10, 1953, and at all times since, to bargain col- lectively with the Union as the certified exclusive representative of all its employees in the unit described in paragraph numbered 2, above, 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 the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged 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 com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] "See N. L. R. B. v. Jarka Corporation of Philadelphia, et at., 198 F. 2d 618 (C. A. 3). PRECISION SCIENTIFIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS, LOCAL 758. Case No. 13-CA-1441- February 7,1955 Decision and Order On October 21, 1953, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had unlawfully refused to bargain with the Charging 111 NLRB No. 88. 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as more fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup- porting brief, and requested oral argument, and the Charging Union filed a statement in support of the Intermediate Report. In view of the basis for our decision, as set forth hereinafter, the Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied. The Charging Union is an affiliate or constituent unit of Interna- tional Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers (Independent), hereinafter called the International. On February 1, 1955, the Board issued a Determination and Order,' determining that the Interna- tional was not and had not been in compliance with the filing re- quirements of Section 9 (h) of the Act, and ordering that until the International had complied with such filing requirements, no further benefits under the Act be accorded to the International or to any of its affiliates or constituent units. In view of the foregoing Determination and Order, to promote the objective of national security which under- lies the enactment of Section 9 (h) of the Act, and to protect the in- tegrity of the Board's processes, we find that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act now to require the Respondent to bargain with the Charging Union. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the complaint without considering the merits of the Trial Examiner's findings, con- clusions, and recommendations. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] 1 Maurice E. Travis, Secretary-Treasurer, International Union of Mine, Hill and Smelter Workers (Ind) and Compliance Status of International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers (Ind.), 111 NLRB 422. YARDLEY PLASTICS COMPANY and FRED W. HANCOCK, PETITIONER and LOCAL UNION No. 464, UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLAS- TIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO FREDERICK B. HILL, JR., FREDERICK B. HILL, III AND YARDLEY MOLDED PLASTICS, INC., D/B/A E. T. PLASTICS COMPANY and ROBERT R. THOMAS, PETITIONER and LOCAL UNION No. 464, UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases No. 9-RD-138 and 9-RD-139. February 7,1955 Decision and Order Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Harold M. Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 111 NLRB No. 83.